[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Mr Speaker: On the front page of today’s Order Paper, it is noted that on 3 November 1915, Lieutenant The Hon. William Lionel Charles Walrond, Rail Transport Officer in the Army Service Corps, Member for the Tiverton Division of Devon, died in Scotland of consumption contracted while on service in France. We remember him today.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

JUSTICE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Prison Governors

Andrew Rosindell: What his policy is on the level of autonomy provided to prison governors; and if he will make a statement.

Michael Gove: I believe that prisons need a new and unremitting emphasis on rehabilitation and redemption. The best way to secure that is to give greater freedoms to prison governors. I would like to give governors more flexibility in managing their budgets and overseeing work and education in custody. With greater freedom must come sharper accountability, so that governors are held to account for their prison’s performance.

Andrew Rosindell: Does the Secretary of State agree that a central cause of criminal behaviour and violence within prisons is an inherent sense of disfranchisement from society? What steps will he take in implementing his reforms to encourage prison governors to instil a sense of British pride, national belonging and responsibility to the wider nation?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend makes a characteristically acute point. It is vital that prison governors are given the right tools, particularly the capacity to play a greater role in deciding what curriculum prisoners follow, to ensure that prisoners, like any school student, have the chance, through the provision of great education, to appreciate the history of liberties that is so important to our country and our criminal justice system.

David Hanson: I am pleased that the Justice Secretary has said that accountability remains important. Will he consider how we can strengthen prison boards through more community involvement to give local direction to local decisions, while retaining accountability to the director general of the Prison Service and to Ministers?

Michael Gove: The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. It is not only independent monitoring boards that are vital; a strong inspectorate is vital too. He is absolutely right that accountability to the local community matters. Only when prisons are rooted in their communities and forge the sorts of links that ensure that offenders go on to work and contribute to their communities on release can we make sure that prisons fulfil their task of rehabilitation effectively.

Philip Davies: Prison governors already have a great role to play in deciding whether somebody should be released on parole, yet nothing is ever fed back to the governors, or anybody else for that matter, to determine whether their judgment was good or flawed. How can we give prison governors more discretion in decisions over whether prisoners should be released when we have no idea whether those prisoners go on to reoffend?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend will be aware that there is a vacancy for the chair of the Parole Board. I would encourage him to—[Interruption.] I encourage others to apply for that post who can ensure that we have a much more rigorous and evidence-led approach to reviewing the grant of parole.

John Pugh: Given the rising trend of suicide in prisons, what advice is being given to governors to allay this serious problem?

Michael Gove: This is a very serious problem and the hon. Gentleman is right to raise it. The work that Lord Harris of Haringey has done on self-inflicted deaths in prison has provided a series of recommendations that we are considering as part of our prison reform programme. More broadly, we are aware that the increased use of psychoactive substances in prison is leading to increased levels of self-harm and harm to others. The Psychoactive Substances Bill, which is being taken forward by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice, will play a considerable part in ensuring that our prisons are safer places.

Jenny Chapman: Having listened carefully to the last reply, I should say that psychoactive substances are not the only factor. We broadly support the Secretary of State’s aim to increase governor autonomy. I have long believed that governors are the best at finding new ways to reduce reoffending. The big problem that he has—he cannot just blame it on psychoactive substances—is that prisons are becoming very dangerous. So far this year, there have been 95 suicides and seven murders in our prisons. Is it not time that he took a fundamentally new approach? Have not the last six years been a wasted opportunity, dogged by petty interference from the centre? We look forward to him changing that.

Michael Gove: The hon. Lady is right to raise that point. One of the ministerial team’s biggest concerns is the incidence of violence and disorder in many prisons.
	As she acknowledges, giving prison governors a greater degree of autonomy is critical to changing things, as is a proper understanding of the mix of offenders in our prisons. As the balance of traffic through the courts has changed, a number of offenders who have violent pasts pose particular risks in prison, and we must ensure that prison officers are provided with the tools that they need to keep themselves and others safe. Those will sometimes be technical tools such as body-worn cameras, which are supported by my ministerial colleagues, but sometimes it is about ensuring that people have the support and training that they need to do their job well.

Human Rights Act

Callum McCaig: When he plans to launch his consultation on plans to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998.

Dominic Raab: May I start by expressing my shock and sadness at the tragic death of Bailey Gwynne last Wednesday at Cults academy in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency? Our thoughts are with his family and friends.
	We will bring forward proposals for a British Bill of Rights to replace the Human Rights Act later this autumn. Preparations are going well, and we look forward to consulting widely, including with the devolved Administrations.

Callum McCaig: I thank the Minister for his condolences after the tragic events in my constituency. The thoughts of everyone in the Chamber are with the families affected.
	As the Minister will know, human rights are not reserved under schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998, so the Human Rights Act cannot be repealed and replaced with a Bill of Rights without the legislative consent of the Scottish Parliament—the First Minister of Scotland has said it is inconceivable that that would pass through Holyrood. With that in mind, why are the Government wasting money pursuing something that they cannot do?

Dominic Raab: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question but I am afraid that is not quite right. Revising the Human Rights Act can be done only by the UK Government. The implementation of human rights in a wide range of areas is already devolved to Scotland, and I urge the hon. Gentleman to focus his efforts in that area.

Bob Neill: Given the constitutional importance of this issue, will my hon. Friend confirm that the consultation will result in a draft Bill that will be subject to full pre-legislative scrutiny in this House?

Dominic Raab: I thank the Chair of the Justice Committee. We will be engaging in full consultation, but I hope my hon. Friend will not mind if I do not trail the precise terms of that at this moment.

Wayne David: As we have heard, the Human Rights Act is fundamental to devolution in Scotland and there are different legal views about how changes might be introduced. The Act is also fundamental to Wales, and it is the cornerstone of the Good Friday agreement in Northern Ireland. Do the Government recognise that abandoning the Human Rights Act may have consequences that they had initially not thought of?

Dominic Raab: We have engaged in consultation and taken a pause at this stage precisely to ensure that we work through all the different points. The hon. Gentleman mentions Scotland, and he will know that in 2014 and 2015 YouGov polling showed consistent Scottish support for a Bill of Rights to replace the Human Rights Act. On that specific question, in 2011 YouGov found that 61% of Scots wanted the UK Supreme Court and this Parliament to have the last word in this country and across Britain, rather than the European Court of Human Rights.

Suella Fernandes: The article 8 right to family and private life under the Human Rights Act has been stretched to the extent that it is laughable, pitiful, and often costly and unjust. Will the Minister reassure the House that the abuse of that right will be dealt with in the consultation, to reinject proportion and to strike the right balance for fairness?

Dominic Raab: A whole range of issues will be covered in the consultation and there will be plenty of opportunity to receive and listen to views, especially on article 8. That provision has clearly created problems concerning the deportation of foreign national offenders, and I would have thought that people across the House and the United Kingdom would support our consultation on that.

Coroners: Out-of-Hours Service

Mike Freer: If he will take steps to ensure that coroners provide an out-of-hours service for faith communities.

Caroline Dinenage: The Government are committed to ensuring that bereaved people are at the heart of the coroner system, and we are working with coroners, local authorities and the police to develop a pan-London out-of-hours service. On 15 October we launched a post-implementation review of the coroner reforms of 2013, including views on the availability of out-of-hours services.

Mike Freer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer, but may I press her specifically on Orthodox Jews and Orthodox Muslims, who require a speedy service and a speedy burial? Will she commit to giving strict guidance to coroners that they should turn around such decisions so that those burials can take place very quickly?

Caroline Dinenage: Coroners understand and should be sensitive to the fact that some faiths have religious and cultural wishes for burials after death. They should always try to take those wishes into account. In May 2014, the Chief Coroner issued guidance to coroners on their legal duties to deal with urgent matters out of hours. As I have mentioned, we are working with key partners to develop an out-of-hours service in London.

Tania Mathias: There are serious concerns about the coroners service that affect faith communities in west London in-hours, let alone out of hours. Will the Minister see what her Department can do to address those concerns?

Caroline Dinenage: We have been working on that. The Secretary of State and I have met representatives from the Jewish and Muslim communities and are very sympathetic to their concerns. We are working with key stakeholders to develop an out-of-hours service across London.

Ex-offenders

Seema Kennedy: What plans he has to encourage more businesses to employ ex-offenders.

Stephen Hammond: What plans he has to encourage more businesses to employ ex-offenders.

Andrew Selous: Providing prisoners with employment is an important factor in preventing reoffending. In the Employers Forum for Reducing Reoffending, we have around 200 employers who are positive about employing ex-offenders. Working closely with the Department for Work and Pensions, we are developing plans to increase the involvement of businesses locally and nationally, and community rehabilitation companies should play an important role in making those links with businesses locally to help ex-offenders to get jobs.

Seema Kennedy: My constituent Renee Blow, who volunteered with offenders for 15 years, emphasises that education is the most important part of rehabilitation. Does the Minister agree that making poorly educated offenders literate and numerate makes them more employable?

Andrew Selous: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I thank and commend her constituent for volunteering in her local prison for 15 years. Her point is absolutely correct: we need good numeracy and literacy, and a good level of qualifications that employers respect and value.

Stephen Hammond: Timpson has an extensive scheme to hire and train ex-offenders. The store in Wimbledon has benefited from that scheme and has found that ex-offenders are extremely hard-working and deserving of a second chance. Given the success of that scheme, does my hon. Friend agree that others might look at it, and particularly at the emphasis on training?

Andrew Selous: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right that the example set by James Timpson for his business is outstanding. He does not do it just out of altruism; he does it because it makes very good business sense, and because he gets dedicated and loyal employees from the scheme.

Gavin Robinson: Does the Minister agree that the attainment and availability of affordable insurance—whether public liability, employers liability, content or driving insurance—for ex-offenders is an inhibitor for employers who would otherwise wish to employ ex-offenders and set them on the right path? Will the Ministry of Justice commit to working on extending the availability of affordable insurance for employers?

Andrew Selous: I will certainly look into that. I had heard that insurance was a problem in employing ex-offenders in certain categories, but, prompted by the hon. Gentleman’s question, I will look into it further and write to him.

Bill Esterson: Businesses can employ ex-offenders only if those ex-offenders have the skills that businesses need. Will the Minister therefore ensure that the shortage of staff in prisons—the shortage appears to be making it more difficult for prisoners to take part in education—is addressed as quickly as possible, which must happen if the scheme is to be successful?

Andrew Selous: There was a net increase of 420 prison officers last year, and we continue to recruit hard, but the hon. Gentleman makes the valid point that we need good quality qualifications. We will carry on with that work. Dame Sally Coates’s review will help us in that regard.

Michael Tomlinson: With reoffending rates as high as 59% for those sentenced to a year’s imprisonment or less, and with the clear link between not reoffending and securing employment, what steps can the Minister take to encourage more employers in Dorset and elsewhere to take on ex-offenders as apprentices?

Andrew Selous: I would strongly suggest that employers in Dorset and elsewhere join the Employers Forum for Reducing Re-offending, where they will be able to talk to other businesses that have already gone down this road and found it profitable and successful for their businesses. We need many more employers to respond to this call to arms and to join Timpson and Halfords and the many other businesses that have gone down this route.

Sharon Hodgson: I am sure that we all agree that education is the key to ex-offenders becoming employable. Given that 25% of our young people in young offenders institutions have special educational needs, will the Minister confirm that all teachers in those institutions will be qualified and able to identify and support children with special educational needs?

Andrew Selous: The hon. Lady will be aware that Charlie Taylor is undertaking a review of the youth justice system, and I can assure her that he has education at the heart of that review. It will report in the spring of next year.

Angela Watkinson: Will the Minister explain what consultations take place with potential employers to ensure that the courses and training in prisons are relevant to the skills that employers want? Also, when a prisoner who is in the middle of such a course has to attend court and is then taken to a different prison, could arrangements be made to ensure that they can complete the course in their new prison?

Andrew Selous: My hon. Friend makes two extremely good points. First, we have to ensure that the training and qualifications that prisoners get are of high quality and are valued by employers. We are committed to involving employers in the reviews that we undertake. Secondly, we are looking to reconfigure the prison estate so that we move prisoners around less, but I absolutely get her point about continuity and allowing prisoners to complete the courses they have started.

Philip Hollobone: Would my hon. Friend consider establishing a Queen’s award for prisoner rehabilitation, so that good employers such as Timpson and Halfords can be suitably recognised?

Andrew Selous: That is an excellent idea, and I will give it serious consideration.

Dangerous Driving: Sentencing

Greg Mulholland: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of sentencing policy for dangerous driving offences.

Mike Penning: The number of road traffic fatalities has fallen dramatically over the past 10 years, but one death is still too many. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, and to the family of James Still in his constituency. I know that they have been campaigning on this issue for a long time. We have toughened up sentencing and we are continuing to look at this area.

Greg Mulholland: I thank the Minister for his answer, and for the real interest that he has shown in this issue. As he knows, we have presented a manifesto for better justice for victims of criminal driving, on behalf of a cross-party group of MPs and other organisations. Could we have a formal, point-by-point response to that from the Department? Will he also meet us again to discuss those points, so that we can get better justice for those people and their families?

Mike Penning: We will respond point by point as we develop the review of sentencing in this area, and of course, as the Minister with responsibility for victims, I will meet the hon. Gentleman. The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), will perhaps also be available to meet the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and the team, as we respond.

Andrew Bridgen: What assessment has the Minister made of the trends in the length of sentences handed down to those found guilty of causing death by dangerous or careless driving?

Mike Penning: We have extended the sentence from two to 10 years for driving without a licence or while suspended, and we continue to look at the sentences.
	At the end of the day, however, we must convince people to drive sensibly so that the highways are safer for all of us. The figures are dramatically down, but we are continuing to look at the sentencing regime.

Kit Malthouse: One of the most effective disposals for repeat dangerous driving offences involving alcohol is compulsory sobriety. Following the highly successful pilot in Croydon and the Minister’s very welcome licensing of that disposal across the rest of the country, will he join me in encouraging police and crime commissioners to set up facilities to allow for compulsory sobriety, so that magistrates can make use of them, particularly when dealing with repeat drink-driving offences?

Mike Penning: I am aware of the scheme, and I discussed it with the Prime Minister only recently. I believe that one of the sobriety bracelets that are being used in Croydon is on the Prime Minister’s desk as we speak. I am encouraging PCCs around the country to push this measure forward, as it has been very successful. I congratulate those in my hon. Friend’s constituency on pushing it forward.

David Burrowes: In 1998, Livia Galli-Atkinson was killed in Enfield by a dangerous driver. I know the Minister has in the past attended the Livia award, which was set up in her memory. This year’s award will take place this evening. The award commends service by police in relation to justice for victims, and highlights the fact that year by year too many drivers repeatedly flout the law, driving while disqualified and failing to stop. What action can follow on from the review?

Mike Penning: This area has been reviewed continually by previous Governments and by this Government. There is a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment. It is for judges to ensure they understand what sentences should be for each offence, but we keep a very open mind and continue to look at the review as we go forward.

Litigants in Person

Ian Lucas: What assessment he has made of trends in the number of litigants in person since the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 came into effect.

Susan Elan Jones: What assessment he has made of trends in the number of litigants in person since the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 came into effect.

Shailesh Vara: It has long been the case that some people represent themselves in courts. The proportion of individuals with legal representation has remained broadly stable in recent years, except in private family law cases where we have seen an increase in cases in which neither party has had representation. This year, we are investing in a new strategy designed to provide more support to litigants in person. Judges, magistrates and legal advisers are well equipped to support litigants in person through the court process.

Ian Lucas: It seems the Minister, in the company of the head of the Courts Service, is alone in thinking there is no crisis because of the increase in the number of litigants in person in our legal system. If the Minister really wants to know what is going on, will he commission an anonymous survey of district judges and court clerks to find out the truth of the crisis in our court system that is happening as we speak?

Shailesh Vara: I remind the hon. Gentleman that we have had to take very tough decisions, which his colleagues would have continued had they been in government. The Government have invested £2 million to ensure greater support for litigants in person.

Susan Elan Jones: The Secretary of State and other Ministers will be aware of the concerns raised by the Justice Committee, the National Audit Office and others regarding litigants self-representing. Will the Department bring forward, from 2017, the planned review of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012? It is sorely needed.

Shailesh Vara: We have said before that the LASPO Act will be reviewed within three to five years of its implementation. Let us be absolutely clear: we still have, notwithstanding the reductions, one of the largest budgets for legal aid expenditure in the world.

Jonathan Djanogly: There are longstanding and very important issues relating to litigants in person that go back much further than the LASPO Act. What actions are the Government taking to simplify and demystify the court process, and to take away the complicated legalities that make it so difficult for litigants in person?

Shailesh Vara: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who was a very distinguished Minister in the Ministry of Justice not so long ago. He is absolutely right. The concept of litigants in person is not new: it has applied for many years, indeed decades. To demystify the court process, we have put better processes in place—online guidance, guidance from court officers and judicial training—to ensure as much support from the judiciary and other legal advisers as possible.

John Howell: With the growth in litigants in person there has been a growth in McKenzie friends. There are two types: those who provide backgrounds to unfamiliar settings and those who act effectively as lawyers and charge for their services. What is the Minister going to do about the latter?

Shailesh Vara: The concept of McKenzie friends is relatively new. [Hon. Members: “No, it’s not.”] I said relatively new. We are keeping an eye on advice and what fees, if any, are being charged.

Karl Turner: In the first quarter of the year, at least one party was not represented in 76% of private family cases, while the Master of the Rolls has warned that civil courts are experiencing significant impacts from the rise in the number of litigants in person. Part 1 of LASPO has been an unmitigated disaster. Will the Justice Secretary now bring forward the much-needed review of LASPO to mitigate the shambles of his predecessors?

Shailesh Vara: The hon. Gentleman refers to family courts. Being relatively new to his post, he might wish to reflect on the comments made by his colleagues, particularly the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), as reported in the Law Society Gazetteon 24 September:
	“Slaughter conceded that the Labour party would have been forced to make cuts to family law funding and promote mediation as a cheaper option. He added that a Labour government would seek to promote and improve mediation services on offer.”
	The article also said—[Interruption.] It is understandable that Opposition Members do not want to hear the truth, but I am quoting one of their own colleagues—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. I want to hear about this article. Let us hear it.

Shailesh Vara: I am sure that other Members, along with you, are keen to hear it, Mr Speaker.
	The article quoted the hon. Gentleman as saying:
	“‘We’re not going to get in a Tardis and go back to before,’ he said. ‘We are in a world where resources are tight and it would not be right to pretend otherwise.’”

Prison Estate

Stephen Metcalfe: What plans he has to improve the prison estate; and if he will make a statement.

Andrew Selous: Our current prison estate is overcrowded and out of date. We will close ageing and ineffective Victorian prisons and replace them with buildings fit for today’s demands. We will invest the money raised in a high-quality, modern prison estate, with facilities for training and rehabilitation, and where the dark corners that facilitate bullying, drug taking and violence can increasingly be designed out.

Stephen Metcalfe: I am sure my hon. Friend agrees that the prison estate sometimes acts as a barrier to delivering rehabilitation services, such as education and work, and I know he will work tirelessly to improve the situation.

Andrew Selous: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s support. The prison we are building in north Wales, for example, has a large industrial workshop complex that will enable us to create the positive rehabilitative environment we all want.

Rachael Maskell: Given that the reoffending rate is nearly 50%, but that at Askham Grange open women’s prison just outside York it is 6%—the lowest in the country—and it has the best outcomes on all measures, why do the Government want to close that prison?

Andrew Selous: I heard from the hon. Lady in last week’s Westminster Hall debate how highly Askham Grange was performing, and I pay tribute to all its hard-working staff, who are doing extremely well. We have to look at the prison estate as a whole to make sure it is fit for purpose across the country, and all these decisions will be considered, but we will continue to focus on improving education and work opportunities for all prisoners.

Stewart Jackson: The Minister will know how successful the social investment bond at Doncaster and Peterborough prisons has been in tackling recidivism. Indeed, he, the Secretary of State and his predecessors visited the prisons. Will he recapitulate his commitment to social investment bonds as a means of tackling reoffending across the penal estate?

Andrew Selous: I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and of course we recently provided additional capacity at Peterborough prison in the form of a new house block. We have studied carefully what happened at Doncaster and Peterborough and will learn lessons from it. The Government are keen that the use of social impact bonds continues across government.

Peter Bone: rose—

Mr Speaker: Oh, very well. I call Mr Bone.

Peter Bone: What a prisons Minister we have! He is going to get rid of the Victorian prisons and open modern ones, and it just so happens that Wellingborough has a mothballed modern prison, so it is terrific news he is going to reopen it and get rid of the Victorian prison. I thank him on behalf of my constituents, and will he confirm he is going to do it?

Andrew Selous: I say to my extremely persistent hon. Friend that should there be any new news on Wellingborough I will make sure that he is the first to hear.

European Convention on Human Rights

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: Whether he plans to hold a consultation on UK membership of the European convention on human rights.

Dominic Raab: As I have made clear to the House before, although we cannot rule out leaving the ECHR for all eternity, our current plans for human rights reform do not involve leaving it.

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: The Minister will be aware that the ECHR is, of course, enshrined in the Scotland Act 2012, so the UK cannot withdraw from it without fundamentally undermining the devolution settlement. Why is the Minister considering doing that?

Dominic Raab: As I made clear, our current plans do not involve our pulling out of the convention, although we cannot rule it out for all eternity. The Human Rights Act 1998 already has an uneven application of rights to the devolved Administrations because of the devolved settlement. In Scotland, for example, the hourly rousing of detainees in police cells is unrelated to risk; in England and Wales, we do not have that, as it is focused on those who are vulnerable. I encourage the hon. Lady to focus her fire on addressing devolved issues such as that rather than pretending that there is some imminent threat to human rights from Westminster.

Michael Fabricant: May I remind my hon. Friend that it was the English Parliament that brought in the Bill of Rights in 1688 and the British Parliament that brought in the Human Rights Act only 310 years later in 1998? Like so much legislation at that time, there were unintended consequences. Will the Minister therefore not listen to Opposition Members and get on with it?

Dominic Raab: My hon. Friend expresses himself in his usual tenacious and powerful way. It is true that the Conservatives have a long tradition of upholding freedom under the rule of law. We want to protect and strengthen that tradition, but we also want to avoid human rights being abused. We want this place to have the last word on where the bar is set for human rights, and we want the Supreme Court to be the ultimate body deciding on and interpreting them.

Joanna Cherry: I thank the Minister for confirming that there are no plans to withdraw from the ECHR at this stage, but I note that he earlier confirmed that there will be a consultation on repealing the Human Rights Act and replacing it with the Bill of Rights. As he knows, the Human Rights Act applies across the whole of the United Kingdom, including Scotland. How does he propose to engage the people who live in Scotland, their Government at Holyrood and their elected representatives in this Chamber in his consultation on repealing the Human Rights Act?

Dominic Raab: Fully, expansively and at great length.

Joanna Cherry: Last week, despite objections from SNP Members in a debate on the Floor of the House, Conservative MPs joined forces with Labour MPs to ensure that no MPs representing a Scottish constituency would be on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which scrutinises the compatibility of UK-wide Bills with human rights. In the light of that decision, how does the Minister expect us to have confidence that Scottish Members of Parliament will be fully involved in scrutiny of the implications of the Government’s consultations on repealing the Human Rights Act?

Dominic Raab: I give the hon. and learned Lady my personal undertaking to talk to her and any other colleagues, as she wishes, when the time comes for publication.

David Davies: Does the Minister agree that any successor to the Human Rights Act should ensure that no compensation is paid in future to foreign nationals who move into foreign war zones and are then imprisoned by foreign countries? The British taxpayer should not be responsible for what takes place.

Dominic Raab: My hon. Friend, too, tenaciously raises these issues of extraterritorial jurisdiction and remedies for cases where people have behaved in an unsavoury or nefarious way. We will have full opportunity to look at all those issues in detail during the consultation.

Court and Tribunal Estate

Matthew Pennycook: What plans he has to reform the court and tribunal estate; and if he will make a statement.

Shailesh Vara: The Courts and Tribunals Service reform programme is once-in-a-generation opportunity to create a modern, user-focused and efficient service. As part of that programme, I announced on 16 July proposals for reform of the court and tribunal estate. The consultation closed on 8 October, and I shall carefully consider all responses before taking forward any decisions.

Matthew Pennycook: Two courts in my constituency, Greenwich magistrates court and Woolwich county court, face closure under the Government’s proposals to reform the HMCTS estate. Although I do not dispute that there can be a case for the closure of under-used or inadequate facilities in some cases, I am extremely concerned that these proposals will further restrict access to justice for my constituents, particularly older people and those on low incomes who may face far longer journey times. Will the Minister guarantee today that in constituencies such as mine that face court closures, a local HMCTS presence will be retained?

Shailesh Vara: First, may I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution to the consultation, which I read very carefully? He acknowledges in his submission that there are alternative methods, such as the use of alternative premises on a part-time basis. Access to justice does not mean physical presence in terms of attending a court. Modern technology such as video conferencing, teleconferencing and a variety of other methods is used in a variety of other sectors, so there is no reason why we should not be looking at that in terms of the court structure.

Richard Fuller: Given that the consultation has now closed, will my hon. Friend commit to publishing a detailed financial analysis of the cost savings in each court area identified, and publish any errors in fact that have been highlighted in the consultation documents?

Shailesh Vara: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his contribution. He has been very diligent in all that he speaks for in his constituency. We will, of course, abide by all the rules that Governments have traditionally followed in publishing information as and when necessary.

Liz Saville-Roberts: I am sure I do not need to remind the Minister that the Welsh Language Act 1993 requires his Department to consider the impact of new policies on the Welsh language. Will he commit to undertake and publish a Welsh language impact assessment before deciding on the future of courts in Wales?

Shailesh Vara: I announced the consultation on 16 July and it has now closed. If the hon. Lady wishes to provide me with further information, I assure her that it will still be taken into account.

Criminal Courts Charge

Tulip Siddiq: What plans he has to review the level of the criminal courts charge.

Michael Gove: It is right that we find better ways to pay the costs of running our criminal courts, and the introduction of this charge has made it possible to recover some of the costs from offenders, which reduces the burden on taxpayers. The Government are, of course, keeping the operation of the criminal courts charge under review.

Tulip Siddiq: The Secretary of State will be aware of disturbing case studies highlighted by campaigners such as the Howard League showing that this charge is putting pressure on people to plead guilty in order to avoid legal costs, thereby restricting access to a free trial. I am pleased to hear that he is reviewing the charge, but will he admit that signing off such an absurd policy should not have happened in the first place?

Michael Gove: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising this issue, because I know that concerns have been expressed across the House and, indeed, by members of the magistracy and the judiciary, as well as by pressure groups such as the Howard League. That is why we are reviewing the operation of the charge. It is important to stress, however, that our justice system already creates a number of incentives for those who enter early guilty pleas, in order to ensure that the wheels of justice can run more smoothly, but I will continue to listen to the points that the hon. Lady and others make.

Craig Mackinlay: Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to review collection rates of the criminal court charge, a system that is wholly despised by the lay magistracy? The concerns go beyond inherent unfairness; there are worries that bailiffs will chase debts that will simply be written off and never collected.

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend makes a characteristically pungent point. He is right to say that we have listened to a number of representations from representatives of the magistracy, but we have to balance those concerns against other judgments as well.

Andrew Slaughter: May I help the Secretary of State on the issue of collection? Earlier this year, the courts Minister told me that the minimum net sum that would be raised by the criminal courts charge in this Parliament would be £265 million. Last night, the Chair of the Justice Committee told the BBC that, as well as distorting the criminal justice system for most defendants and sentences, it may well run at a loss. The Secretary of State does not need to review the charge; it is worthless as well as dangerous. Should he not just scrap it now?

Michael Gove: I believe in evidence-led policy and it is important that we should look at not just the evidence from the magistracy, but, as the hon. Gentleman points out, the collection rate. The criminal courts charge is generating revenue, which helps ensure that the taxpayer is not the first port of call for supporting the way in which our courts operate, but it is important that we balance all the criteria in making a judgment on the review of the charge. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) is yapping incessantly, like an overenthusiastic puppy dog. He has practised in Her Majesty’s courts and I cannot believe that he comported himself in that manner when he was there. He must calm himself, even if momentarily.

Legal Aid

Debbie Abrahams: What assessment he has made of the effect of changes to civil legal aid on access to justice; and if he will make a statement.

Judith Cummins: What assessment he has made of the effect of changes to civil legal aid on access to justice; and if he will make a statement.

Caroline Dinenage: Civil legal aid reform has delivered important and necessary savings while protecting access to justice. Legal aid remains available for the most serious cases, including cases in which life or liberty is at stake, there is a risk of serious physical harm, or children may be removed from their families.

Debbie Abrahams: The Government rejected the Work and Pensions Committee’s recommendation that an independent body should be set up to investigate the deaths of social security claimants, saying that their relatives could seek redress through the courts. Given that the same Government have cut access to legal advice or representation on social security by 80%, how exactly are they meant to do that?

Caroline Dinenage: The hon. Lady will understand that I cannot go into details of such cases for reasons of confidentiality, but I will say that there are no easy choices when we are dealing with the deficit that we inherited from the Labour party. However, we recognise that legal aid is a vital element of any fair justice system, and ours is still one of the most generous legal aid systems in the world, on which we spend more than £1.6 billion a year.

Judith Cummins: The Minister talks about the scandal of our two-nation justice system, but under this Government many hundreds of thousands of ordinary people no longer have access to legal advice or representation. Other than asking lawyers to do more work for free, what does the Minister plan to do about that?

Caroline Dinenage: As I have said, we are already spending more than £1.6 billion a year on legal aid, and ours is still one of the most generous systems in the world. We have committed ourselves to a review of the reforms within three to five years of their implementation, and we have acted swiftly to address issues as they have come to light. For example, we have invested an extra £2 million in assistance for litigants in person.

Open Resettlement Establishments

Caroline Flint: If he will review the criteria used to determine whether prisoners with a history of violence are placed in open resettlement establishments.

Mike Penning: When we are considering whether any prisoner should be transferred to open conditions, our overriding concern should be the protection of the public. Transfer to open conditions is not automatic, and should always be subject to risk assessment.

Caroline Flint: I am one of 14 Members of Parliament—including you, Mr Speaker—whose constituencies contain open prisons. Some 61 murderers have gone on the run from those prisons in the past five years. The opening of a new open prison unit in Don Valley, which has been given the welcoming name of Hatfield Lakes, has prompted concern about the kind of prisoners who are transferred to such establishments. The governor of an open prison often has little prior knowledge about a transfer, and may even have no say when it comes to the suitability of prisoners who are coming into their care. Will the Minister meet me, and other interested Members, to discuss the criteria for putting people in open establishments?

Mike Penning: I pay tribute to the right hon. Lady, who has campaigned extensively on this issue over the years, but I must say to her that the problem did not suddenly arise five years ago. There were absconders before that, which is a fact that she forgot to mention. However, I am sure that the Prisons Minister will be more than happy to meet her.

Topical Questions

Susan Elan Jones: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Michael Gove: As this is national pro bono week, may I take this opportunity to congratulate and applaud the solicitors and barristers who do so much to represent individuals for free? In particular, may I draw attention to the fact that Baroness Lawrence is paying tribute this week to the lawyers who acted for her pro bono in securing justice for her son Stephen? They have proved that the law is not just a profession, but a vocation for justice.

Susan Elan Jones: Many of us were very pleased when, 546 days ago, the Government announced a full review of driving offences and penalties, but we were rather less pleased that it was 546 days ago, and we still have not seen the results of the review. May we please have a date on which we will be able to receive them?

Michael Gove: The hon. Lady makes an important point, but it is vital that we look at sentencing in the round to make sure that we make balanced judgments. One of the problems we have sometimes had in the past is that new offences have been created and new sentencing frameworks have been laid down that have led to confusion rather than clarity, and we want to ensure we have swift and certain justice.

Wendy Morton: What safeguards and guidelines are in place for the probation service regarding the category of residents at approved premises or bail hostels that are located within residential areas and within one mile of a school?

Andrew Selous: I am well aware of the concerns of my hon. Friend and her constituents about this issue. The fact is, however, that the rate of reoffending among residents in bail hostels is lower than in other types of accommodation, and of course they do allow us to have a proper risk assessment and supervision. If my hon. Friend’s local authority can identify another site with guaranteed planning permission, however, we will certainly look at it.

Andrew Slaughter: It looks likely that by the end of today 90 solicitor firms and 70 of the 85 bidding areas across the country will have started proceedings against the Legal Aid Agency over the award of criminal legal aid contracts. Given that we know, thanks to a whistleblower, that the tendering process was run by junior temporary staff with “very limited” legal training, does the Secretary of State agree with the Criminal Law Solicitors Association chair that if the Government
	“were trying to handle it badly”,
	they
	“couldn’t have done a better job”,
	and what chance does he think he has of winning those cases?

Michael Gove: It is rare that I ever disagree with the CLSA, but on this occasion I have to differ. The individual referred to as a whistleblower is merely one voice. The voices I have heard from many others, including those who have received their contracts, is that this was a well-run process in the tradition that the LAA has upheld for many years now.

Andrew Slaughter: Turning from the chaos in the courts to the chaos in our prisons, the Secretary of State will agree with me that prison officers are doing an exceptional job in the most difficult of circumstances. Yesterday I met officers here who told me that, as one put it, as a result of the cuts in funding imposed so far,
	“prison officer numbers have been cut to levels where prisoners are taking over the prisons.”
	When we see that serious assaults on staff have risen by 42% in the last year, is he not right?

Michael Gove: I find myself distressingly often these days agreeing with the hon. Gentleman that our prison officers do a fantastic job. I value the meetings I have with them and the feedback they give me. We have recruited 420 new prison officers in the last 12 months. Of course we keep safety and security in our establishments under review, but as I explained earlier we are taking steps on the use of technology and also on the increased powers that governors will have which I hope will make our prison estate safer and more secure for everyone.

Alberto Costa: In evidence to the Justice Committee in July, the Secretary of State confirmed that his Department would be undertaking a review of the Legal Services Act 2007. Can he please confirm today if a date has been set for that review, and if not when the date of the review will be set?

Shailesh Vara: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question and he is right that my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice did say to the Justice Committee that there would be a review of the regulation of the legal services sector as well as the 2007 Act. Clearly this is something we need to give consideration to. It will happen within this Parliament and the House will be informed in due course of the exact scope and timeframe.

Douglas Carswell: Yesterday the Prime Minister announced changes to Government policy regarding the use of special guardianship orders. What assurances can the Minister give that this will not inhibit the ability of loving grandparents to assume legal responsibility for their grandchildren?

Michael Gove: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question. I know he has been campaigning very effectively on increased transparency in the family courts. One of the points the Prime Minister sought to make yesterday is that sometimes special guardianship or other kinship choices will be absolutely right, but there have been cases where special guardianship orders have been granted to grandparents and others who have had limited, and in some cases no, contact beforehand with the child placed in their care, so we do need to keep the system under review.

Nicola Blackwood: Does the Minister agree that specialist courts for crimes with high reoffending rates like drugs and sexual offences can offer a number of benefits if implemented correctly, not only by reducing those reoffending rates but also by more sensitive handling of vulnerable witnesses, which can lead to better evidence and fewer cases collapsing?

Shailesh Vara: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that specialist courts can lead to a reduction in reoffending. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor recently visited the United States, where there is evidence that reoffending does diminish with specialist courts. We will be taking on board whatever we can learn to put into practice in the UK.

Philippa Whitford: In the new ministerial code, published on 15 October, Ministers are obliged to comply with “the law”, but the phrase
	“including international law and treaty obligations and to uphold the administration of justice”
	has been removed. The former Attorney-General did not like that phrase very much, so does the Minister feel this changes the obligation to comply with international law?

Dominic Raab: I thank the hon. Lady for her question. There has been no change in obligations on Ministers. The code reflects the duty to obey the law. We have long had a dualist approach to international law, and it is also important that that is upheld.

Neil Carmichael: Rehabilitation is likely to be on a smoother path if prisoners have access to good education in custody. What steps is the Department taking, in conjunction with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, to ensure that maths and English are promoted within prisons?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I am inclined to take a leaf out of the Education Secretary’s book here. In a speech she is making today, she is making the point that we need to reform our testing system to know how well children are performing when they enter school and when they leave primary school. In our prison estate, we should have tighter monitoring of the educational attainment of prisoners when they arrive in custody and when they leave. I am delighted that we are ad idem.

Anne McLaughlin: Legal aid was withdrawn from refugees who safely reached these shores and needed to be reunited with their families because this was deemed to be a straightforward process. The British Red Cross report entitled “Not So Straightforward” indicates that that is not the case. Has the Secretary of State read the report? Will the Government reintroduce legal aid or will they simplify the process so that legal aid is not required and the process in in fact straightforward?

Shailesh Vara: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising the issue of legal aid again. As I said earlier, we have committed to having a review of the implementation of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. That will be carried out within three to five years of its implementation, but we do keep a watching eye on matters as they evolve.

Stephen Hammond: The Prisoners Education Trust does much to prepare prisoners for release, but to ensure that they get the skills they need for release, does the Minister think it would be sensible to encourage prison governors to be more entrepreneurial and start up more businesses inside prisons?

Andrew Selous: My hon. Friend and the PET make extremely good points. I know that the Secretary of State was very impressed with the prison entrepreneurship programme he saw in America recently, and last week I was in a prison talking to Sue Ryder staff who were very keen to help prisoners set up their own bicycle repair businesses. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that we need to go further.

Meg Hillier: A constituent of mine is seeking an appeal against an immigration refusal but has been waiting six months. Another has a family member who was given leave to appeal this June and has a date for a tribunal hearing next May. What is the Secretary of State doing to reduce these unreasonable waits?

Shailesh Vara: As a consequence of the Immigration Act 2014, we anticipate the number of appeals going down. We are keeping an eye on the numbers and at the moment we do not see a particular concern, but if there is one, we will make sure that there are more sittings.

Chris Skidmore: The Secretary of State has spoken about achieving swift and certain justice for the families of the victims of dangerous driving. Along with the families of Ross and Clare Simons, who were tragically killed in an incident in my constituency in January 2013, I have been campaigning for the maximum sentence to be raised from 14 years to life imprisonment. Will the Secretary of State meet my constituents and a delegation of interested MPs to discuss this issue?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend has been a particularly assiduous campaigner in respect of this heartbreaking case, and of course I would be delighted to meet him and other colleagues who want to make sure that the law can be changed appropriately.

Cat Smith: The Minister will be aware of the case of Tara Hudson, the transgender woman who was placed in a men’s prison and then moved to a women’s prison on Friday. Can he explain why it has taken so long to get Tara moved? Will he clarify the guidelines for sentencing procedures for transgender prisoners?

Andrew Selous: I cannot comment on the details of Ms Hudson’s case, but I can assure the House that she is being held in an appropriate environment and is receiving the care that she needs for legal reasons. The National Offender Management Service incorporates equality and diversity in everything that it does and treats offenders with decency and respect. The guidelines allow some room for discretion in such cases, and senior prison management review the circumstances in the light of medical and other expert opinion to ensure that we get these issues right. More generally, prisoners who are in transition to their acquired gender are entitled to live in that gender.

Mark Menzies: Jobs, Friends and Houses is an award-winning initiative on the Fylde coast, which provides ex-offenders with real opportunities to work in the building trade. Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating it on its excellent work and seek to support it and other such endeavours in the future?

Michael Gove: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing that fantastic campaign to the attention of the House. In three simple phrases, he and the organisation sum up what ex-offenders need: work, strong relationships and a place to live.

John Cryer: Earlier, the Secretary of State mentioned the recruitment of prison officers. I think that the figure of 420 was used, but that is against a background of a 25% cut in prison officers in the previous Parliament. What is the current shortfall?

Andrew Selous: There is quite good news in this area. We appointed 2,230 prison officers between 30 June 2014 and 30 June 2015. That is a net increase of 420 additional prison officers. We have 600 candidates on the waiting list for when vacancies arise, and prison officer vacancies are at a low of 2.1% compared with 5.2% last December.

Michelle Donelan: The Minister will be aware that the future of Chippenham’s courthouse is currently with the HM Courts and Tribunals Service consultation and that Swindon courthouse is in desperate need of renovation. While that work is carried out, Chippenham is perfectly placed to provide the ideal location. May I urge him to consider that key fact when the future of Chippenham’s courthouse is determined following the consultation?

Shailesh Vara: I assure my hon. Friend that no decisions have been taken with regard to the consultation and that I will be considering very carefully what she has just said as well as all the other submissions that will be made.

Toby Perkins: The needs of female offenders are different from those of male offenders in the Probation Service. That has been established across three Prison Reform Trust reports. When the call for evidence of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation finally reports, will the Government finally allocate the resources required to ensure that we reduce reoffending among women prisoners?

Caroline Dinenage: The transforming rehabilitation changes have been about trying to stop reoffending. The fact that they are now kicking in for people who have been in prison for less than a year, which covers more than 70% of the female prison estate, is key. Transforming rehabilitation is about what works, but I am keeping up a constant dialogue with the community rehabilitation companies to ensure that what works includes a very special provision for women offenders.

Alex Chalk: Whether or not the criminal courts charge survives in the long term, will the Secretary of State give the most careful and timely consideration in the short term to giving discretion to judges and magistrates as to whether it should be imposed so that they can do justice in the instant case?

Michael Gove: As I acknowledged earlier, the criminal courts charge is a cause of concern across the House, but it is also important that we maintain a balance between the funding of our courts coming from the taxpayer and that coming from those who use our courts. My hon. Friend makes a valuable submission on which I shall reflect.

Ian Lavery: HMP Northumberland, like many other prisons, is awash with the legal high, spice. It is creating a really dangerous environment for prison officers and offenders alike. What action is the Minister taking to tackle that very dangerous situation?

Mike Penning: As the House is aware, we have just come out of the Committee stage on the new psychoactive substances Bill. I amended the provisions in Committee with the support of Her Majesty’s Opposition and the Scottish National party to make it a criminal offence to have spice, or any other NPS, in prison. That was at the request of the governors and the officers’ union.
	Several hon. Members rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am sorry to disappoint remaining colleagues but we must now move on.

Speaker’s Statement

Mr Speaker: Just before we come to the urgent question, I must advise the House that I have received a report from the Tellers in the Aye Lobby for Division No. 104 on the Housing and Planning Bill yesterday at 9.59 pm. They have informed me that the number of those voting aye was erroneously reported—

Desmond Swayne: Shocking!

Mr Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is easily shocked.
	As I was saying before I was interrupted in such a gentlemanly fashion, the tellers have informed me that the number of those voting Aye was erroneously reported as 228 instead of 218. The Ayes were 218 and the Noes were 305. The House is now better informed.

Humanitarian Aid: Refugees in Greece and the Balkans

Yvette Cooper: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for International Development to make a statement on humanitarian aid for refugees in Greece and the Balkans.

Justine Greening: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady and to you, Mr Speaker, for giving the House the chance to discuss this important matter today. As the House will be aware, more refugees made the perilous journey across the Mediterranean into Europe last month than in the whole of 2014. Indeed, in October 218,000 people crossed the Mediterranean, bringing the total for the year so far to more than 750,000. Greece and the Balkan states have borne the majority of that burden and although the response is being led by the Governments of those countries, the UK has led the way in supporting them and has provided essential humanitarian assistance across Greece and the west Balkans. That was part of the EU Ministers meeting that I attended last Monday, where we also discussed the issue of migration.
	In September, anticipating the impact of the colder winter months, we released £11.5 million of life-saving aid for refugees in Europe, in the Balkans and in Turkey. This past weekend, I announced a further £5 million to provide sleeping bags, hygiene kits, nappies, food and clean water for people in need in Greece, Serbia, Macedonia, Slovenia and Croatia. In total, the UK has committed nearly £25 million to support refugees arriving in Europe as well as those on the journey in north Africa. We continue to respond to the requests that have been made. I recently approved a UK contribution to the EU civil protection mechanism, which deals with requests for in-kind assistance from other European countries. Of course, that is alongside the support that my Department has given in the Syria region over the past four years.
	A total of £1.1 billion makes us the second largest donor country and that support has enabled the vast majority of Syrians affected by the crisis and displaced to stay in the region rather than feeling that they need to make the journey to Europe. Only a tiny fraction of the total number of displaced Syrians have therefore sought asylum in Europe and without the UK’s humanitarian response, that number would have been far higher. Of course, we continue closely to monitor the situation across Europe and we will consider further support as needs emerge.

Yvette Cooper: I thank the Secretary of State for the work that her Department is doing in the region and in Greece and the Balkans, but she will know that across Europe we are simply not doing enough. Too many people are dying and too many children are suffering on Europe’s soil and off Europe’s shores.
	I stood on the north shore in Lesbos and watched the flimsy dinghies pull in. We heard that smugglers are giving discounts when the weather is worse, so more people are arriving, and although valiant work is being done by residents and volunteers on the island, there is simply not enough basic support to help. There are not enough rescue boats in the area, and HMC Protector and HMC Seeker have been sent home. One family was in the water for five hours, with a baby pulled out by fishermen who then managed to resuscitate him. There are not enough boats, but there also is not enough shelter or support. There are not enough blankets or enough basic sanitation—toilets and taps. An aid worker told me that they are worried about cholera in Europe. There are not enough doctors, ambulances or even morgues to help.
	Yesterday, someone from Save the Children said:
	“I was stopped in my tracks by a child shivering…her hands and lips…blue…Minutes later, we found three young men unconscious with hypothermia…forced to sleep for three days in a field”—
	to queue for papers—
	“there are not toilets for those waiting in those queues—so faeces is mixing into the flowing streams”
	of drinking water. This is in Europe, so we are all failing.
	May I ask the Secretary of State to do three things? First, will she go to Lesbos and to the Balkans herself to see what is happening, particularly in the Moria camp, which is just appalling and should shame us all? Secondly, will she call for more direct immediate humanitarian aid, both from Britain and from Europe more widely, before more people die? Thirdly, will she ensure that the British boats can return to the Mediterranean to assist with search and rescue so that people do not drown? Winter is drawing in and this is on our conscience. All of us need to make sure that there is action now.

Justine Greening: The right hon. Lady raises some very important points, which I and my Department have spent many years working on directly. She is right to set out the desperation that leads so many of those people to try and make what can, in some cases, be a fatal journey from the Syrian region to Europe. I can announce to the House that having been in touch with Frontex to offer further support, the UK will as of Thursday deploy a new ship to help provide search and rescue facilities in the Mediterranean. That offer has been accepted so VOS Grace will be part of that effort, which is good news. It is worth reflecting that the support from the UK by means of Border Force cutters and Royal Navy ships has saved over 8,000 lives to date.
	The right hon. Lady is right about the need to press European partners to do more. We can be proud of the work that we as a country have done to help people affected by the crisis in Syria and latterly as they have arrived in Europe. That is not just the work I spoke about in relation to saving lives in the Mediterranean; we have provided asylum for thousands of people and, as I have just set out, we are actively helping key agencies on the ground, such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the Red Cross and the International Organisation for Migration. The right hon. Lady is right to highlight the fact that more needs to be done. That was precisely the point I made in Luxembourg last Monday at an EU Ministers meeting. Britain cannot do this work on our own. We can be proud of the work that we are doing—no country in Europe has done more—but we need other European states to join the effort, and I very much welcome the right hon. Lady’s highlighting of the issue through her own efforts.

Christopher Chope: I thank my right hon. Friend for all the work that she is doing. Some 10 days ago I was in Kos as a member of a small delegation from the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly. We could see with our own eyes how many of those hapless people have been cruelly misled into thinking that there is a place for them in Europe. My right hon. Friend refers to Syrians, but a large number of the people we saw were from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Why can we not do something to ensure that these people are processed, if that is the right expression, on the Turkish mainland, without the need for them to risk their lives crossing the Aegean?

Justine Greening: Much of the discussion in Europe has turned to how we can work more effectively with Turkey. It is worth pointing out that Turkey has around half the refugees who have left Syria to date—about 2 million refugees. My hon. Friend is right to highlight that. We are working with Turkey. We have worked with it to help it in its humanitarian support. Some of the work that I have just described that we are doing in Europe more broadly relates to registration and helping countries in Europe to process the refugees arriving on their shores.

Diane Abbott: The Secretary of State will be aware that it is not enough to say that people have been cruelly misled. Some 570,000 migrants have crossed the Greek border this year, and because of the onset of winter and Russian bombardment we are seeing a spike in the number of arrivals. The mayor says there is no room on Lesbos to bury any more refugees. We note that £20 million has been allocated, the Secretary of State has announced a further £5 million emergency fund and we will be deploying a new ship, but what action will the British Government, working with EU partners, take to tackle the increasing activity of people smugglers? The Government have promised to resettle 4,000 refugees this year and 20,000 over the next five years. Can we have a progress check on this? Are there any plans to increase the numbers? Does the Secretary of State recognise that while the Government are to be commended for the money that has been spent on the camps in Syria, we are seeing a crisis unfolding in Greece and the Balkans that shames the European family of nations?

Justine Greening: The hon. Lady raises important issues. The point I made at the EU Ministers meeting last week is that this is an issue of European credibility. We have been in New York signing off on new global goals, we have a world humanitarian summit coming up next May and the UK has been at the leading edge of providing support to people affected by this crisis. It is important that when people arrive on Europe’s shore they are effectively taken care of. I have set out some of the work that the UK is doing, but it is vital that other EU member states play their role alongside our efforts.
	In relation to people-smuggling, some of the work that our ships in the Mediterranean have done is not just to save lives but to catch some of the potential people smugglers. The deployment of VOS Grace later this week will enable all that work to continue. The hon. Lady is right to highlight that this is an important part of how we tackle the refugee crisis. It is not just about providing support to people; it is also about tackling the criminality that is at the heart of the situation. Many of these people have been conned into giving away their life savings and any remaining assets they have to be told that they can possibly make a new life for themselves in Europe, but by going on a boat that may never get them to where they want to get to. It is important that we tackle the criminality. That is why it is important that the vulnerable persons relocation scheme works as it does. We are enabling people to relocate without having to put their lives in the hands of a people smuggler in the first place. That is a safer, more secure route, but crucially it also enables us to target the people who are the most vulnerable in the camps and in host communities who have been affected by this crisis and who would probably never have the means or the capacity even to begin such a journey in the first place.
	We have said that during this Parliament we will relocate and support up to 20,000 people to come to the UK. I can assure the hon. Lady that we are on track with our initial resettlement of 1,000 people by Christmas.

Bob Stewart: Following the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), what percentage of these people does my right hon. Friend think are fleeing for their lives and what percentage are fleeing to get a better lifestyle?

Justine Greening: One of the challenges that Europe has had over recent months is understanding in detail the drivers behind the refugee flows. Of course, the two things that my hon. Friend set out are not mutually exclusive. Some Syrians are not only fleeing what they believe to be a very unstable region but are very well educated and want to get on with their lives and have a better life for themselves in Europe. The key drivers are instability and the search for opportunities. That is why all the work that DFID is doing, whether in humanitarian arenas such as the Syria region or in the doubling up of work that we have done over the past two years on economic development—creating jobs and livelihoods in Africa, for example—is so important. If people do not feel they have a life and a future where they are, in today’s modern world they will set off and find a better life and a better future somewhere else.

Patrick Grady: We welcome the announcement of additional support, especially as winter approaches, but I was interested in the list of provisions being made available by the UK Government. I did not hear mention of tents. Sleeping bags have been mentioned, but it would be interesting to know whether people are going to be supported so that they do not have to sleep out in the open in winter. Of course, the best thing to do is to move people into secure and safe accommodation. It would therefore be helpful to know what support and advice the Government are giving to reception centres in arrival countries as regards moving people into safer accommodation, and whether this ultimately has to include a proportion of people coming here to the United Kingdom. Should not the UK take a fair proportion of the total number of refugees coming into the EU?

Justine Greening: The support we provide is very much driven by the needs set out to us by the agencies and non-governmental organisations with which we work.
	I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman that we have provided tents—for example, in Croatia—and we are playing our role in helping to make sure that when people arrive at reception centres, they are dealt with and processed properly.
	As the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) set out, there is a real issue of scale, and Britain cannot solve that on its own. It is worth emphasising to the House that each of the countries where refugees are arriving is leading the response in that country, so it is up to UN agencies and NGOs to work as part of a national response by each country. As I have set out, Britain is also supporting those countries in order to have an adequate response. As the House has heard, there are real challenges, given the scale of the numbers and the flow of refugees who are arriving on European shores.
	The hon. Gentleman talked about the UK taking its fair proportion. The reality is that we can be proud of the work the UK is doing to support refugees affected by the Syrian crisis—whether it is the work we are doing in the Mediterranean to save lives, the thousands of people who have been given asylum already, the approach we now have of relocating people from the camps safely and securely, or the kind of support closer to home that I have set out today. No country in Europe is doing more than the UK, and the House should be proud of that.

Jeremy Lefroy: May I thank the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) for asking this urgent question? I entirely agree with the points she made. May I also thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for all the work that she and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Refugees are doing? May I, however, urge the Government to engage directly with the Governments of countries which now have refugees? As winter comes, we cannot allow bureaucracy or any other impediment to get in the way of making direct contact to offer our support to the Governments of Greece and the other Balkan countries to ensure that no lives are lost needlessly.

Justine Greening: I can assure my hon. Friend that we are doing just that. The problem he sets out is one we commonly face when we are trying to help any refugees, wherever they are. We only have to look at some of the challenges in Lebanon, where many of the refugees are in so-called informal tented settlements. That means that it has been far harder for us to put in place water and sanitation and to get education to the children in some of those camps than it otherwise would have been compared with the work in Jordan, which, broadly speaking, has been more Government-driven from the word go. We are now facing the issue closer to home on our own shores in Europe. I assure my hon. Friend that we are working with those Governments, while also urging our other European partners to step up to the plate, too.

Stephen Twigg: One of the factors driving more refugees to Europe is the level of support from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the World Food Programme in neighbouring countries. What can be done to ensure that there is the right level of resource to enable families who wish to stay in neighbouring countries to do so? I understand that the UNHCR does not have the kind of authority in Greece and the western Balkans that it enjoys in countries such as Jordan. What can be done to enhance the authority of the UNHCR on the ground in Europe?

Justine Greening: On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, the reality is that, even now, the UN flash appeal for Syria is just over 40% funded. As he sets out, the inevitable consequence is that it is actually hard for the World Food Programme to meet all the immediate needs of the refugees in the region, let alone to look ahead to providing some of the education that children need or some of the work on livelihoods that might, for young men, be an alternative to their setting off on the journey towards Europe. He is absolutely right to flag that up as a direct issue. On his second point, I will write to him.

Tom Pursglove: We have seen great generosity across the country in relation to the refugee crisis. In my constituency a few weeks ago, I attended a church service in Irthlingborough, where local people had brought an inordinate amount of goods to help the cause. What steps can the Government take to make sure that those items go to where they are most needed and will have the biggest impact?

Justine Greening: My hon. Friend highlights the huge generosity of the UK public in responding to the refugee crisis closer to home. I know that many NGOs are helping to get those very kind offers through to people on the ground. I recommend that he looks at the part of the Government website that sets out the key places where people can offer support if they so wish, and signposts how people can get more involved practically.

Tim Farron: I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) who has quite rightly asked this question today. Like her, I recently visited Lesbos, where I found very similar things to those that she observed. Some 94% of those presenting on the isle of Lesbos are independently attested to be refugees fleeing war and persecution. It is not that there is anything wicked about being an economic migrant, but those people were clearly running away from war, fear of death and instability for them and their children. It is shameful that we as a country are not taking a single one of the people in those camps at the moment.
	Last week, I asked the Prime Minister about this, but he dismissed my call for the UK Government to accept 3,000 unaccompanied refugee children in Europe. He inaccurately claimed that there were worries that some of the children would be taken from relatives. The UNHCR has since confirmed that these would be children with no identifiable family, so I repeat: will the Government now work with Save the Children to take in 3,000 unaccompanied children who may otherwise face abuse, trafficking and exploitation?

Justine Greening: I have set out very clearly the approach that the UK has taken to helping people who are affected by this crisis. Our approach of taking people directly from the camps is safer and more secure. I have also set out how we have already provided asylum for several thousand people who have arrived in the UK, after making the journey because of the Syrian crisis.
	The hon. Gentleman asks about unaccompanied children. If we look at Jordan, for example, about 80% of the children who originally arrived there unaccompanied were subsequently reunited with their broader family. The point that the Prime Minister quite rightly made is that it is very easy in this House to talk emotively about numbers and children. The reality is that we must be extremely careful to ensure that we do not make decisions on their behalf that fundamentally take them further away from the family with whom they would wish to be reunited. The hon. Gentleman has made his point very well, and I have responded to him.

Peter Bone: Obviously, there is not agreement in the European Union on how to deal with these problems. Has the excellent Secretary of State thought of talking to the Council of Europe, which covers many more countries, about an overall solution?

Justine Greening: We are having a range of discussions to see how the situation can be better managed in Europe. This is not just about the challenge we face in the Syria region. Frankly, that challenge is to have the kind of support at the scale needed, but which is currently not being delivered. I have seen for myself from discussions among EU Ministers from countries in the Schengen region that there is very little agreement. What we need, in effect, is a co-ordinated approach within the Schengen region, but as far as I could see at the time—this was certainly the case last Monday—there was no political prospect of achieving that.
	Although such discussions need to go on, the UK is right to provide additional support on the ground. However, we clearly all need to keep in mind the key objective, which is to help Syrian refugees in the region. People are leaving the region because food rations from the World Food Programme are starting to be cut, and because they are worried about how their children will have an education when so few Syrian children can be in school, in spite of the best efforts of countries such as the UK. We were instrumental in setting up the No Lost Generation initiative, through which many children are in school, and we are working with the World Bank to look at how to have better livelihood programmes. There is no doubt that the answer involves, first, some political resolution—ultimately—in Syria, and secondly, some political resolution in Europe, too.

Ann Clwyd: The Secretary of State is usually very sympathetic, but I do not like the way she has dismissed the claims of children, particularly unaccompanied children who have been separated from their relatives. Has she had any discussions with EU Ministers about what happened in Italy last year, when of the 13,026 children who arrived unaccompanied, 3,707 disappeared? What assessment has been made of where those children are? I support the request from Save the Children that 3,000 unaccompanied children be given refuge in the United Kingdom. It is not much to ask, surely.

Justine Greening: The right hon. Lady makes an important point very clearly. The UK has helped the International Organisation for Migration to do better evidence gathering to find out what is happening on the ground. Part of the challenge is that people, including children, often turn up without any papers. Some people are even concerned about registering with the authorities in the countries that they reach because they are worried that they will not be able to continue their journey. This is a complicated situation, but I assure her that we are playing a key role in getting support to refugees who arrive here in Europe, including children.

Philip Hollobone: I commend my right hon. Friend for the magnificent and effective way in which she is fulfilling the responsibilities of her office. The fact that the UK is second only to the United States in the amount of aid it is giving to the region is testimony to her efforts. Is it not the case that were all other EU countries to contribute towards aid in the region in proportion to what the UK is doing, the problem presenting itself on the Turkey/Greece border would not be nearly at its present scale?

Justine Greening: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course, the cost that many European countries now face to support refugees who felt that they had no choice but to set off on a life-or-death journey is immense. That money would have been spent far more effectively, produced far greater value for money and enabled support to get to many more people had it been put directly into the UN effort on the ground, working with generous countries such as Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey, which have taken so many refugees. If we had worked with those countries more effectively, many of the refugees—I have met many of them in my visits to the region over the past few years—would have done what they had wanted to do, which was to stay there in the hope that, in time, they could rebuild their lives and go back to Syria.

Keith Vaz: The Secretary of State is right to be robust on criminality, but the only organisation that can deal with it on a pan-European basis is Europol. Why are we not giving more resources to Europol to deal with this problem? In the spirit of openness and transparency, will she tell the House today how many Syrian refugees have arrived in the UK following the Prime Minister’s pledge? That is a very simple question that has not been answered. It would be good to reveal that information to the House.

Justine Greening: We have been clear that we will not give a running commentary on how many refugees have been resettled here, not least because they need to receive support and treatment and to get on with their new lives here without the glare of the media upon them. I will ensure that Home Office Ministers write to the right hon. Gentleman with further details on his point about Europol.

Mary Creagh: We have heard about the problems of the 3,000 unaccompanied minors and the Minister’s warm words on the generalities. May I press her on the specifics of the case of Mr Nawaf Ali, who fled Saddam Hussein’s murderous regime in Iraq 14 years ago and whose two daughters, aged 14 and 15, are currently unaccompanied and seeking asylum in Germany? Will she and the Under-Secretary of State for Refugees meet me to cut through the bureaucratic claptrap that I have had from the Home Office on this case, so that these children can be reunited with their parents in Wakefield?

Justine Greening: The hon. Lady has raised that case with me, but it is not one with which I am familiar. I am happy to look at the details and, if necessary, to meet her. As she said, many of the refugees are going to Germany, where there is an existing Syrian diaspora. That is perhaps why the flows there have been larger than those to the UK, even though we have provided asylum to many of the Syrians who have arrived. I will look at that case and, if necessary, meet her.

Mike Gapes: We have been talking today about the symptoms of the crisis, but the cause, as the Secretary of State knows full well, is that 11 million Syrian people have had to flee their homes, 7 million of whom are internally displaced and 4 million of whom are refugees. What are the Government doing to stop the barrel bombing and brutality of the Assad regime? Some 250,000 people have died and many more will die as a result of Russian air strikes and Assad’s barrel bombing. What are we doing about safe havens, humanitarian corridors and the protection of the population inside Syria?

Justine Greening: The hon. Gentleman has raised one of the most important elements of the response to the Syrian crisis. It is incredibly important that we can get to people inside Syria. Many of our cross-border supplies are going into the country from Turkey. It took us over two years to get a UN Security Council resolution even to do that effectively. The action by the Russians is taking us further away from reaching a long-term political settlement in Syria. As the Government have set out, we believe that more action needs to be taken against ISIL, which is also perpetrating huge atrocities against the Syria people.

Karen Buck: The Greek economy is in crisis, yet the Greek islands are at the front of the European response to the crisis. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Greek people have shown extraordinary resilience in the face of that pressure? I have seen for myself half a dozen volunteers feeding 1,000 people in Greek feeding stations. The pressure on public services means that the Greeks are simply unable to process people who are waiting for transit papers on islands such as Kos and Lesbos. Will she work with our European partners to ensure that people who are desperate for travel papers do not have to wait for days in worsening weather in order that they can move on? Feeding and housing people is one thing; making sure that they can get the papers they need is another.

Justine Greening: The hon. Lady is right that this is not just about giving people the bare essentials to be able to survive day-to-day. We are providing support for the kind of registration facilities that she has talked about. It is right to mention the broader issue of so-called host communities and their generosity. I have met communities in Lebanon and Jordan that have seen their local populations literally double in a matter of 12 or 24 months. That puts huge strain on the existing populations. That is why, as well as working directly with refugees, we are working with the communities that they suddenly arrive in. You may not be aware, Mr Speaker, that the refugees outside Syria are overwhelmingly living not in camps like Zaatari in Jordan, but in host communities. That accounts for 80% of them or more. That is why so much of the work that we have done has been to help local government and municipalities cope with those pressures.

Shabana Mahmood: I was on Lesbos three weeks ago volunteering at Moria camp and on the shore at Sikaminia, where the boats from Turkey come in. The conditions are appalling and the scale of the human suffering and tragedy is soul destroying. Every time we saw a boat, all we could do was hope and pray for a safe landing. There was a shocking lack of presence on the ground of official authorities and the larger international charities that one would expect to see when faced with such a crisis. Instead, the work was left to smaller organisations and volunteer groups, which are utterly overwhelmed. Will the Secretary of State consider visiting Lesbos and working with the Greek authorities directly to provide British co-ordination assistance and infrastructure, particularly at Moria camp and Sikaminia, because if the rest of Europe will not step up to the plate, she should bypass it and go to Greece directly?

Justine Greening: I have been the first person to get on a plane. I have spent a lot of time in the region seeing for myself the issues affecting refugees, and I have no doubt that the European situation is no different. Such visits are important, and when I visited Lebanon we decided to introduce the No Lost Generation initiative to get children into school, because it was clear that there was so little facility. As the hon. Lady says, there are organisational challenges on the ground. Such initiatives are country-led—that is how they work—and in spite of efforts by countries such as the UK, and UN agencies, more work must be done to enable countries to cope with the flow of people arriving. Alongside such initiatives, the work that VOS Grace will be doing really matters, and we also need to disrupt criminality—the work of people smugglers is leading to the flows of people that countries such as Greece are finding it hard to cope with.

Stephen Gethins: As has been said, the weight of refugees often falls on those countries that are least able to cope. Has the Secretary of State considered increasing the number of refugees that the UK is willing to take in?

Justine Greening: We have set out our position on the vulnerable persons relocation scheme, which I think is responsible, but the hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the issue of where refugees are. More than 85% of displaced people in the world—there are a record number at nearly 60 million—are in developing countries and the places least able to cope, rather than developed countries such as those closer to home in Europe. That is why the weight of our response has—quite rightly—been in the region, helping countries in Africa such as Ethiopia, which has 700,000 refugees. We do not see those refugees in the paper, but that country still needs assistance to cope with them.

Jenny Chapman: Will the Minister consider further the response that she gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz)?
	Transparency is important because the Prime Minister made a pledge about a specific number of refugees, and it is important for public confidence that we know how many people have arrived. Will the Minister think again about her reluctance to let the public know?

Justine Greening: The Minister responsible for the overall relocation scheme is in the Chamber—[Interruption.] I apologise. He was in the Chamber earlier, and I have no doubt that he will be watching these questions. We have been clear that we will update the House, but we will not be giving a day-to-day running commentary.

Diana R. Johnson: I also want to ask about the vulnerable persons relocation scheme, and I am disappointed that the Minister has left the Chamber. I was at a meeting on Friday in Hull, and I was told that four local authorities in Yorkshire are keen to take in Syrian refugees under the scheme and had reached a funding agreement with the Home Office. A few days later, however, they received a letter stating that the funding had been reduced by two thirds, which means that those local authorities are not in a position to take in the Syrian refugees who we all want to bring to this country. Will the Minister write to me and explain why the Home Office did that, and say what effect that will have on the 1,000 refugees who we are expecting here by Christmas?

Justine Greening: I will follow up that issue with the Home Office and ask Ministers to respond to the hon. Lady with more details.

Tom Brake: Turkey is playing a critical role and has taken in 2 million refugees, compared with the 20,000 that the UK will take in over the next five years. Has the Secretary of State had time to assess the impact of the AKP victory, and does she think that it will lead to changes in Turkey’s attitude to the camps in that country? What might be the knock-on consequences for Greece and the Balkans?

Justine Greening: The continued mandate of the Turkish Government means that there is some stability in terms of the partners we have been working with. It remains to be seen whether there will be policy changes for how Turkey chooses to deal with what is now a huge number of refugees in its midst.
	The hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) asked a question on safe zones, which I did not answer at the time. Although safe zones may seem appealing, getting them in place effectively with UN backing, and enabling them to be delivered safely for people on the ground, is key. We never want to put people in the position that they faced in Srebrenica, for example, where they thought they were in a safe zone, but which proved fatally not to be the case. There is anecdotal evidence of refugees being worried that if safe zones are set up, they may be forced back over the border into Syria, and that is possibly one reason why some refugees are leaving the camps and making the journey to Europe. I assure the House that we are considering all possible means to ensure that we protect vulnerable refugees, but we also have a responsibility not to create a situation that could put people in even more danger.

Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe

Christopher Chope: (Urgent Question): To ask the Leader of the House of Commons if he will make a statement about the rationale that was applied in determining which members of the UK delegation should be reappointed to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

Therese Coffey: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work in the Council of Europe over the past 10 years. He will know that decisions about appointments to the delegation are a matter for different political parties, and places are allocated in proportion to representation in Parliament. Normally, decisions are taken through the usual channels and approved by the leaders of the parties represented on the delegation. I appreciate my hon. Friend’s disappointment at the changes to the delegation for this Parliament, but I am sure that he will take advantage of the extra time that he has to spend in the Chamber by making more of his customarily pithy and perceptive contributions to debates.

Christopher Chope: It is most reassuring to have confirmation from my hon. Friend that the issue of reappointment was not based on merit.
	May I ask my hon. Friend what consultation has been carried out with political parties, as specified on page 174 of “Erskine May”? Why will she not confirm that the real reason why three independently minded former Ministers are being purged is because we voted in favour of a free and fair EU referendum with a strict 28-day purdah period, as recommended by the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission and our Electoral Commission? Does she accept that that decision is being interpreted in Strasbourg as direct interference by Government in the work of the Parliamentary Assembly?
	The Leader of the House said on Thursday that he was aware of the House’s desire to express its opinion on the membership of the new delegation, and he said that
	“no doubt the House will give the matter careful consideration”.—[Official Report, 29 October 2015; Vol. 601, c. 511.]
	How is that to be facilitated? Will the Deputy Leader of the House ensure that the House can express its opinion before you, Mr Speaker, transmit the list to the Parliamentary Assembly? As the Assembly cannot consider the list until 27 November, does she agree that there is plenty of time to do that?
	Does the Deputy Leader of the House recall the speech made by our Prime Minister on 26 May 2009 entitled “Fixing Broken Politics”? In it he said that
	“MPs should be more independent”
	and that Select Committee members
	“should be elected by backbenchers, not appointed by Whips”.
	He called for Parliament to be a
	“real engine of accountability…not just the creature of the Executive”.
	Why do those fine words not apply to Conservative members of the Parliamentary Assembly?

Therese Coffey: Six months into this role, I am afraid that I have not digested all of “Erskine May”. I do not know what page 174 refers to, but since my hon. Friend has pointed it out to me, I will make it my urgent duty to consult it straight after this urgent question.
	I recognise that my hon. Friend is disappointed. He was appointed by the leader of the Conservative party on the last two occasions, and new people have now been added to the delegation. The written ministerial statement was laid at 11.33 am today, and hon. Members can see the list. If it is of interest to the House, I could read it out, but I am sure that our time would be better served by moving on to important legislation, and that piece of paper is available in the Vote Office.

Chris Bryant: Far be it from me to intrude on private grief in the Conservative party, but we in the Labour party have elections for these posts. I recommend democracy to the Conservatives.
	This smacks of a vindictive attitude by the Government towards some of their Back Benchers. I have never agreed with the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) on a single thing in the history of his or my time in the House, and I am not entirely sure that I agree that he is always pithy—nor am I. He is, however, an extremely assiduous parliamentarian, as are the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), who have also been removed. To be honest, the only rationale that I can detect at work in the appointments is that anyone who has ever disagreed with the Prime Minister is for the chop.
	It seems that the Deputy Leader of the House does not understand the rules that govern the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. The whole point of the Assembly is that its members are not Government representatives but parliamentary representatives. Indeed, the statute of the Council of Europe is very clear. Article 25a states:
	“The Consultative Assembly shall consist of Representatives of each Member, elected by its Parliament from among the members thereof, or appointed from among the members of that Parliament, in such a manner as it shall decide”.
	The key point is that delegates to the Assembly are either elected, which has not happened in this case, or appointed in such manner as the Parliament decides, not in such manner as the Prime Minister decides.
	Does the Deputy Leader of the House realise that the way in which the Government have proceeded could mean that the Assembly ends up questioning the British delegation for the first time ever? Does she accept that the Government have taken so long since the general election that the six-month grace period will have elapsed, and that the UK Parliament will have no delegation from this Saturday until it is agreed by the Assembly? That is happening at a time when the Assembly has important business to deal with, not least human rights issues in Turkey and Russia’s ongoing suspension and boycott, all because the Prime Minister has stamped his little foot.

Therese Coffey: The hon. Gentleman says that he rarely agrees with my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope). This is a rare occasion when I disagree with my hon. Friend.
	I am sure the shadow Leader of the House recognises that this is the same process that has happened in the past five years. He will be aware that decisions are taken through the usual channels and approved by party leaders. I am not aware that his party leader has objected to the way in which the delegation was proposed.

Peter Bone: I have a letter from the Ukrainian delegation to the Council of Europe to the Prime Minister on behalf of Georgia, Moldova, Poland and the Baltic states. It states:
	“In international politics, it all too often comes down to personal trust and leadership shown in difficult circumstances. Mr Christopher Chope is such a man who has earned our trust and whose leadership deserves our highest esteem.”
	The most important bit is this:
	“It would be utterly regrettable if because of his absence during the coming crucial months the Russian Delegation would manage to have its credentials restored”.
	I do not understand why the Leader of the House has not come to the Chamber. I suggest that the Deputy Leader of the House reconsiders the position and delays the submission of the names. The current situation is utterly undemocratic and utterly wrong. I am afraid to say that the Prime Minister should be ashamed of himself.

Therese Coffey: My hon. Friend is right to pay tribute to our hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) for his work on the Council of Europe, but I put to him again the fact that, as happened five years ago, there are new people on the Council of Europe. As a consequence, I do not believe that changes in the new delegation are unreasonable.

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: The urgent question asked by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) highlights the rationale that is applied in determining the make-up of such delegations and, further, of Committees and other groups. I advise the House that the Scottish National party is, characteristically, at one in relation to our members of the delegation. Such delegations and groupings should reflect the current make-up of the Parliament. To that end, I take this opportunity to express once more the disappointment of SNP Members that we are excluded from participating in the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
	In respect of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and any other such assemblies, Committees or groups, will the Deputy Leader of the House give assurances and take due cognisance of the hugely important role that Opposition parties, regardless of size, play in the House? We are all democratically elected Members of Parliament and have a part to play, which should be recognised, and appropriately and fairly reflected, in all that we do.

Therese Coffey: The hon. Lady has been put forward as a new member of the Parliamentary Assembly, as has another SNP Member. All I will say on the matter of the Joint Committee on Human Rights is that there was a unanimous recommendation from the Committee of Selection, at which the SNP was represented. The House eventually voted on that recommendation.

David Davis: Mr Speaker, I would have thought that, after the ridiculous and mean-spirited attempt to get rid of you at the end of the last Parliament, the Government would have learned a lesson about taking punishment attitudes to appointments.
	The PACE is not simply a representation for the Government in Europe; it is a representation for the House. The Assembly will become progressively more important as Europe becomes more unstable, and as matters such as the European convention on human rights become important to this Parliament. Will the Deputy Leader of the House therefore return to the House at a future date with a procedure for ratifying the proposal, so that the whole House can decide who represents it?

Therese Coffey: The convention has been that representation is split up by political party as represented in the House. Different political parties take different approaches on how they put forward their nominations. The Conservative party puts the decision in the hands of the leader of the party.
	I should add for my right hon. Friend that there was no attempt by the Government on the last day of the last Parliament to remove you, Mr Speaker. It matters that that is very firmly put on the record.

Mike Gapes: I am not a member of the delegation to the Council of Europe, but I am a member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. I am pleased to say that I have the confidence of my colleagues and was re-elected to serve on that delegation.
	Is it not time that the Conservative party recognised that we are in the 21st century? It should put confidence and trust in its Back-Bench MPs so that individual Members of Parliament decide who represents the party in international bodies, rather than have a top-down, Leninist leadership-led structure.

Therese Coffey: I do not want to lecture Labour Members on their element of democracy, but the Conservative party has led the way in bringing democracy into the open. We were the first party to have a primary back in 2003, but the Labour party regularly runs away from primaries.

Philip Hollobone: Are there not two fundamental problems? The first is the way in which the Conservative party chooses its members of the delegation, and the second is that the Prime Minister decides on the delegation, not the House. Cannot the problem be solved by allowing the House to vote in a whole-House election on who should represent us on the Assembly? You, Mr Speaker, not the Prime Minister, should submit the list to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in your name only. I remind the Deputy Leader of the House that, although she is a member of the Government, she is also, as part of her duties, here to represent Members of the House to the Government—she is not always here to represent the Government to the House.

Therese Coffey: I take those duties very seriously. I am sure that the wise words that have been expressed today will be listened to. Nevertheless, the convention on appointments that has been followed on multiple occasions has been followed in this case. There is nothing to suggest that there is anything disorderly about it. My understanding is that you, Mr Speaker, will present the names on behalf of Parliament to the Parliamentary Assembly.

Jim Shannon: I thank the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) for bringing this matter to the House and allowing us all to make a contribution.
	I agree that the groups should not only be made up of parliamentary representatives but be picked by the House. I share the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh) about the Scottish National party’s exclusion from the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I would like my party to be involved in that Committee, too. Will the Deputy Leader of the House tell us what steps are being taken to ensure that the House itself will decide who the representatives will be, and that Members will make that decision rather than just one person?

Therese Coffey: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any assurances about changes in procedure, because there have been no such changes in the past five years. He should be aware, however, that the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) has been appointed as a member of the Parliamentary Assembly. There are 27 Members of Parliament on the list, 10 of whom come from the 2015 intake. This is just about changing with the new set of MPs coming into the House.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I should like to pay considerable tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope). I represent the party in a sister organisation in Europe, the Alliance of European Conservatives and Reformists. My hon. Friend and I were involved in a lot of consultation during the last Parliament over the suspension of the Russians, and he did a terrific job in the Council of Europe. Many people regard it as a jolly, but if they study the work that he has done on that delegation, they will realise what a serious organisation it is. It needs people with knowledge, wisdom and determination, and those are the people this House should be appointing to the delegation.

Therese Coffey: I agree with my hon. Friend that the Council of Europe is a very serious organisation and that the work undertaken there is of the utmost importance. Yet again, I reaffirm my appreciation of the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch over the past 10 years. It is simply that a decision has been made to bring new people into the delegation.

Tom Brake: I congratulate the Deputy Leader of the House on her first statement. Would she welcome other urgent questions that facilitate the washing of dirty Conservative linen in public? If so, I am sure that we on the Liberal Democrat Benches would be willing to help her.

Therese Coffey: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. He was my predecessor in this role, so he will be aware of standing at this Dispatch Box. I do not think that this is a case of washing dirty linen. An orderly question has been asked, and although the answer might not be the one he wanted to hear, I believe that it has explained why the delegation is as it is.

Mark Pritchard: I recognise the huge contribution that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) has made to the Council of Europe, particularly on the important issue of migration. I encourage him not to be downhearted, however, because there are still independent-minded Conservative Members of Parliament on the list of delegates. There are, for example, Members who campaigned and voted for a European Union referendum. The shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), was wrong to suggest that the list is full of Conservative sycophants.

Therese Coffey: My hon. Friend has also joined the parliamentary delegation, representing the Conservative party. I am sure that he will be a robust voice in Strasbourg and that he will raise important issues on which all members of the Conservative party are united.

Points of Order

Philip Hollobone: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During the replies from the Deputy Leader of the House to the urgent question, it was made clear that your signature would be required on the list of names before it could go to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Please could you advise the House on whether it is in your power to test the opinion of the House on the suitability of the names on the list?

Mr Speaker: The short answer to that is no. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He is correct to say that it falls to me to send to Strasbourg the list of those appointed to the Parliamentary Assembly UK delegation, together with important accompanying documentation. Rule 6 of the Assembly requires those credentials to be transmitted, if possible, at least a week before the opening of the session. I will of course consider the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised. Indeed, as he has already made it, I have essentially done so. That said, let me be clear that I interpret my duty as being to forward the names, not to offer a critique of them.

Tom Brake: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It has been drawn to my attention that Steve O’Connell, the London Assembly member for Croydon and Sutton, has been sending emails to my constituents in which he states that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), who is in his place, is happy to take up cases to do with rail services on behalf of my constituents. I seek your guidance on this, Mr Speaker. I will give the hon. Gentleman the benefit of the doubt on this, as he is a new Member and I want to have a good working relationship with him, but could you remind me whether there is a convention relating to these matters, of which it might be useful to remind the House?

Mr Speaker: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman if I did not hear him correctly, but I assume, given that he is an experienced Member of the House, that he notified the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) of his intention to raise this point of order.

Tom Brake: Yes, I did.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I also thank him for giving me notice of the point of order. I confirm that it is a well established convention that, unless otherwise agreed between the Members concerned, the interests of electors should be represented only by the constituency Member. It is not possible or appropriate for me to ensure that that convention is enforced, however. It is best to leave it to the good sense of Members to work out any problems between them. I know both Members involved, and I have every confidence that they can be relied upon to do just that.

Simon Burns: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given your customary helpfulness, may I please seek your guidance? You have rightly said in the past that the criteria for granting an urgent question should be that it is newsworthy and that people are talking about the issue in the Dog and Duck. As you will appreciate—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his attempt. Let me just say that the responsibility for determining whether a matter warrants an exchange on the Floor of this House in the form of an urgent question lies with the Chair. I discharge that responsibility assiduously. The right hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member of the House and he knows full well that those decisions are not subject to questioning by Members. He has had a go, but I am afraid that he made a bit of a mess of it.

Peter Bone: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Following the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), you rightly said that you had to submit the names to the Council of Europe. However, you do not necessarily have to submit them immediately, given that the Council of Europe cannot act until the end of this month. It would be possible to have a debate on the matter in this House on a substantive motion that had not been laid by the Government. Would you perhaps consider laying such a motion, to enable such a debate to occur?

Mr Speaker: The safest and most sensible response for me to make to the hon. Gentleman’s serious point of order is that I will reflect on it. Rather than giving him an instantaneous reaction, it would be better for me to reflect on it. He has raised a point that has not been raised in recent times, and it warrants consideration and possibly, on my part, consultation. I thank him for what he has said.

Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (Amendment)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Bill Wiggin: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the “1990 Act”) to establish additional factors, including environmental performance, health and safety and maintenance costs, as matters to be taken into account by the Secretary of State in considering whether to include, retain or release a building, or part thereof, in or from a list compiled or approved under the 1990 Act due to its architectural or historic interest; to make provision about excluding parts of buildings and structures within their curtilage from such lists; and for connected purposes.
	I moved into a farm that is a grade II listed building. Although a public footpath runs between my house and the cowshed, I believe I would require listed building consent to put solar panels on the cowshed roof as it lies within what is called the curtilage, even though the cowshed is not mentioned in the listing for the farm. It is a corrugated metal building of no historic or architectural interest and it smells strongly of manure.
	In the light of that experience, I believe that the curtilage requirement is a piece of red tape that needs to be removed: for the benefit of the planet; for the people who occupy listed buildings and do nothing about the environment to have their excuse of curtilage removed; to free up more roof space for solar panels; and to fulfil our desire to be the greenest Government ever. Yes, of course, we need to protect that which is historically valuable, but we need to protect the planet. By including just the elements of the buildings we wish to protect in the listing, we will not put at risk the history we love and want to cherish. I am looking to make changes only to grade II buildings, as grade I and grade II* protect buildings deemed to be “of exceptional interest” and of “particular importance”. I have confidence that Historic England has listed carefully all the important elements in those buildings.
	In 2015, there were 376,099 listed buildings in England, 92% of which were grade II—346,011 buildings. In north Herefordshire, we have 4,150 listed buildings, of which 81 are grade I, 233 are grade II* and 3,668 grade II. Historic England’s website says:
	“Any omission from the list description of a feature does not indicate that it is not of interest. Objects, structures and buildings affixed to a listed building or within its curtilage may also be protected by listing. These rules may mean that considerably more may be protected by the listing than is obvious from the list entry alone and there can often be considerable uncertainty as to what is covered.”
	It is a criminal offence to carry out works that require listed building consent without first obtaining the required consent. Ignorance of a building’s listed status cannot be used as a defence. The maximum penalty for carrying out works without permission is two years’ imprisonment or an unlimited fine—all to stop a few solar panels and some insulation! I know that Historic England understands the need for change, because according to its website:
	“As from 26th June 2013 some new list entries or list entries amended after that date may expressly exclude such curtilage buildings from protection.”
	It is time to roll out that common sense to all grade II buildings.
	Restrictions on listed status prevent environmentally friendly changes to buildings that are necessary to protect our planet. Older buildings can be enormously expensive to heat and have high maintenance costs. Their owners must face up to their environmental responsibility and save energy, and not just turn up the thermostat.
	There are some social justice issues here, too. Many of the buildings do not belong to wealthy people who can afford more oil; even those who can are doing the wrong thing. It is far better to insulate and save fossil fuel.
	We must make it easier for owners to make energy saving changes, while protecting the sections of their historic homes that are valuable. They would then be able to spend more on looking after the buildings, which would become more affordable to live in, thus opening the market wider to members of society. It is therefore a question of balance: opening up the opportunities for grade II owners to do more for the environment, while saving the features of importance to Historic England.
	If I may use Buckingham Palace as an example, although it is grade I, the listing goes into detail about many fine features both externally and internally. In reference to the roof, it says, “Slate and leaded roofs”. As the roof is mentioned in the listing it should be protected and solar panels would therefore require listed building consent. However, many other grade II listed buildings where the entry does not go into anywhere near as much detail should have only that which is listed protected, just the same as Buckingham Palace. Not every listed building is large or expensive; some homes just happen to be within the curtilage of a listed building. This curtilage “catch all” is a lazy and bureaucratic device that is out of date. One of the most important points is that it adds cost and workload to already overstretched council planning departments, particularly at a time when they are under enormous pressure—costs and constraints that in turn detract from protecting the valuable—as well as enforcement action, which is time consuming and risky.
	My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer often talks about mending the roof when the sun is shining. He never says we need to ask the council for listed building consent to be allowed to do so. However, we need to do more than simply mend the roof. We need to use it for solar panels, we need to insulate the roof and we need to be free to do so without having to ask permission. It is time to change the curtilage requirement. We need to be precise in what we want to preserve. We need to stand up for all that is good about our history and go forward protecting all that is good about our planet.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Bill Wiggin, Mr David Burrowes, Mr Richard Bacon, Dame Angela Watkinson, Zac Goldsmith, Mr Stewart Jackson, Robert Neill, Sir Gerald Howarth, Mr Mark Prisk and Boris Johnson present the Bill.
	Bill Wiggin accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 March 2016, and to be printed (Bill 89).

European Union (Approvals) Bill [Lords]

Second Reading

Priti Patel: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	The purpose of the Bill is to approve two draft decisions of the Council of the European Union. For the UK to agree the draft decisions at Council, Parliament must first give its approval, as the decisions rely on article 352 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union. Article 352 allows the Union to take action to attain one of the objectives set out in the treaties but for which there is no specific power given. However, the European Parliament must give its approval, and unanimous support must be given by all other member states.
	Section 8 of the European Union Act 2011 provides that a Minister may vote in favour of an article 352 decision only where a draft decision is approved by an Act of Parliament. I am setting out the draft Council decisions and will provide Members with the opportunity to debate and decide whether to approve the measures.
	The first decision will enable the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to be granted observer status in the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. The agency is the EU body with the objective of providing assistance and advice on fundamental rights issues to the EU institutions and to member states when implementing Union law. It carries out the same role for EU accession states with observer status. This measure does not extend the competence of the agency.
	The proposal has been in existence since 2010 and it cleared the UK parliamentary scrutiny process in place at that time. The Greek presidency lifted its block on the decision in April 2014 and the decision re-emerged last year with all other member states ready to vote in favour of the decision. However, the UK had to enter the scrutiny reserve for the decision pending approval by an Act of Parliament due to the requirements of the EU Act.
	The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia has been an EU candidate country since 2005, but in recent years there has been serious backsliding on the reforms. A political crisis has been unfolding in the country in the past year, which has raised concerns about the rule of law and adherence to democratic principles. A European Commission report issued in June set out a series of recommendations needed to return the country to the path to EU accession. This included reforms related to freedom of expression and the rule of law. Observer status at the agency could allow the country to have access to advice and assistance on fundamental rights issues to help to tackle its reform challenges, and provide assistance and help to the country on human rights issues.
	The second measure gives effect to a decision by the Council enabling the EU tripartite social summit to continue to operate. The summit is a meeting of representatives of European social partner organisations, the Commission and the Council, and it meets on the eve of the European Council in the spring and autumn for high-level discussions between the three parties on aspects of the European agenda for growth and jobs. The summit was established by a Council decision in 2003, but, under the Lisbon treaty, agreed in 2007, the legal basis for the summit—article 202 of the treaty of Rome—was repealed. The decision in the Bill re-establishes the legal basis of the summit.
	The decision takes account of formal changes in the EU institutions since the last decision and name changes among the employer organisations. The Government can support the continuation of the summit because discussion of the need for jobs and growth can support the labour market reforms needed in other member states. In the intervening decade, during the existence of the summit, no apparent risk to the UK has emerged. The final agreed text of the summit measure has been published by the Council and has received consent from the European Parliament.

John Redwood: Are there any financial consequences from these decisions?

Priti Patel: I can assure my right hon. Friend that neither decision has any financial implications for the UK.
	Finally, I do not consider that any of the Bill’s provisions engage the rights set out in the European convention on human rights, so no issues arise about the Bill’s compatibility with those rights. It is intended that the Bill will come into force on the day of Royal Assent. I look forward to hearing the views of the House.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: I am grateful to the Minister for coming to the House to set out the provisions in the Bill, but people will find it surprising that such a relatively uncontroversial measure is being introduced through primary legislation, when tax credit cuts affecting 3.3 million working families were introduced through secondary legislation. The situation is actually worse than that. We have time today on the Floor of the House to debate the Bill, but we ran out of time on the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, meaning that we did not reach the last group of 33 amendments, which included issues as important as cuts to social housing rents and changes to support for the mortgage interest scheme. Perhaps the greatest irony of all, however, is that the Government could not find more time to discuss the abolition of child poverty targets—the issue of child poverty in Britain no less—while the Bill actually facilitates similar European-wide targets on poverty.
	Turning to the substantial measures in the Bill, I do, of course, welcome the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia being an observer of the work of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. The agency’s work fighting racism, intolerance and xenophobia is crucial, and it is a positive step that the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is to be an observer.
	I was delighted to hear the Minister talk positively about the tripartite social summit. It was almost as if she had discovered her inner pro-European. How wonderful it was to hear her praising that body. The Bill continues the summit and gives it a more specific remit around achieving the targets laid out in the Europe 2020 agenda. I welcome that because it is an important forum in which EU partners can discuss social and employment issues. Of course, part of the Europe 2020 agenda is recognising that the EU has a co-ordinating role to play in combating poverty by identifying best practice and national learning. The target has been set of reducing the number of people threatened by poverty and social exclusion by at least 20 million by 2020.
	Will the Minister clarify what role the UK will play in the 2020 agenda? How do the Government propose to report on poverty, including child poverty, in an internationally comparable way, when they have decided to abolish their own domestic child poverty targets? Given the international context, which she set out, and the recent tax credit cuts, the abolition of the child poverty target is a remarkable anomaly. To put it simply: why are the Government scrapping poverty targets at home and then promoting them abroad? That is precisely what they are facilitating. [Interruption.] There is no point Ministers shaking their heads. That is exactly what the Europe 2020 agenda is all about.

Owen Smith: It is what the Bill is about.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: Absolutely. It is great to witness this pro-European moment. Even the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) has come in for it. How great it is to see!

John Redwood: Given that the main purpose of the Bill is to endorse new procedures for discussing unemployment and the lack of growth on the continent, does Labour now think that getting countries out of the euro could help them price themselves back into work and get rid of the dreadful unemployment that now lies like a pall over much of the south of our continent?

Nick Thomas-Symonds: It is perhaps an indication of the paucity of my teenage years that I can remember watching the television in the mid-1990s and seeing the right hon. Gentleman ploughing his Eurosceptic furrow very finely, as he always does. In answer to his question, it is of course a matter for the countries themselves. I would not seek to dictate to them.

Kelvin Hopkins: I agree with some of what my hon. Friend is saying, but, on the subject of countries digging themselves out of their problems, Greece was given a bail-out, but on strict conditions, including restrictions on public sector workers taking industrial action, and other such things. This is not a country making its own decisions, but a country that has had conditions imposed upon it by the EU.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I am sure that across the House we have particular views about the conditions imposed. I have views, and I know that he does too.
	On employment rights, I invited the Minister to praise the work on paid leave and equal treatment for part-time workers, as well as the EU’s work on fair pay for agency workers. I hope the House approves the changes to the tripartite social summit, but I also hope we can take this as an indication that the Government will not sign away the employment rights gained over many years for working people in this country through the European Union, and that decency at work will be a fundamental part of the Prime Minister’s renegotiation in the next few months.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I hope not to detain the House for long, but I wish to make a couple of points.
	First, in answer to the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), we are having this debate because we foresaw, during the passage of the European Union Act 2011, issues that might or might not be controversial but that would be worthy of proper scrutiny on the Floor of the House. We rarely divided on that Bill on the Floor of the House because we wanted to ensure proper scrutiny of things being done in our name at the EU level. In today’s Bill we see the provisions of the 2011 Act coming through. On the comparison with tax credits, I understand where he is coming from, but it could be argued that previous changes to tax credits have been introduced under statutory instruments. However, we foresaw this coming, so we amended the European Union Act, as it was then, to make sure that we could scrutinise these sorts of matters on the Floor of the House. These two examples are not the world’s most exciting, but we will see more and more such measures coming forward, and we will have more and more time to talk about them.
	I have visited Macedonia and I am a fan of the country. Having been a Member of the European Parliament, I have seen how a neighbouring country has done everything it can to stop the Macedonian accession to the European Union, and I have seen what Macedonia itself has achieved, taking massive strides forward towards EU membership. I am pleased that Macedonia has been able to become an observer in the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights.
	My only concern relating to the Bill and Macedonian entry is that the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights has come out of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, which had unbelievably difficult financial and administrative problems in the past. I would like to check with the Minister every now and again to ensure that the past problems of that organisation—which were responsible, among other things, for its name change—have been completely turned around so that the agency does what it is meant to do, without duplicating other problems.

Bob Stewart: Will my hon. Friend define “observer” for me? Does it mean the EU observes Macedonia or Macedonia observes the EU in respect of human rights, for example? I would like to know exactly what “observer” means.

Chris Heaton-Harris: It is a bit of both. The agency has the following main tasks:
	“to collect, analyse and disseminate…objective, reliable and comparative information”
	related to the situation of fundamental rights in the EU;
	“to formulate and publish conclusions and opinions on specific thematic topics…on its own initiative or at the request of the European Parliament, the Council or the Commission”;
	and it is also about
	“the promotion of dialogue with civil society…to raise public awareness of fundamental rights”.
	A debate is going on in this country about where those rights should lie, what sort of legislation should exist in relation to them and who should police them. Macedonia has had that debate in its own Parliament, has applied to join this agency and is willing to pay appropriations to it. I do not see why we should step in its way. As I have said, there have been problems with the agency in the past, but it serves an important function in that member states’ voting rights could be suspended, based on the findings of any of its reports. The agency has teeth in no uncertain terms, and it has a decent operating budget of over €20 million a year. Macedonia has made its own choice, and it is right for it to go down that route if it chooses to do so.
	I want to speak briefly about the draft decision on a tripartite social summit for growth and employment. There is a new Council decision, following Lisbon, that allows the number of meetings to be increased from one to two a year, and allows the President of the European Council to attend. The European Commission is allowed to host and facilitate meetings, so there should not be too much of a cost to it. My questions are more about the direction of travel of this organisation, its duplication, its purpose in being and whether we can raise questions about what it does.
	This is not the European Economic and Social Committee, whose abolition I have called for in the past because of the huge costs for members belonging to one of the three groups of employers, employees and various other interests. The employers group comprises businessmen, people from certain business lobbies; the workers group comprises members from 80 trade unions mostly affiliated to the European Trade Union Confederation; while the third group is made up of lobbies from civil society. Most of those groups are paid for by the European Commission to lobby it in different ways to get the Commission to do more. Many European countries have a national version. However, the organisation I am talking about is not that. It is a separate beast.
	One important question is who are the EU’s social partners? A list of social partners organisations consulted under article 154 of the treaty of the functioning of the European Union includes Business Europe. Business Europe is quite an interesting organisation. Unsurprisingly, it has a particular view on the referendum we might be having here. It gets a small sum of money, nearly €457,000, as payment under a grant received for a project running over a couple of years, of which the total budgeted cost was €1.2 million. The members of Business Europe include our CBI—it is one of the ways in which the UK CBI receives some money from the European Union. It includes other organisations such as the European Trade Union Confederation, which I mentioned previously and which received €4 million from European institutions, spending over €1 million lobbying the EU.

Kelvin Hopkins: Given the sums that the hon. Gentleman mentions, is it not possible that these organisations will be more kindly disposed towards the EU—simply because they have received such substantial sums?

Chris Heaton-Harris: I would like to think that they would not be. If I were a leading light in the CBI or the ETUC, I would want to make sure of being in a position whereby I would not be accused of being biased in one way or the other. Receiving money from the European Commission that is then spent lobbying the EU to do things—whether it be business organisations lobbying for liberalisation or trade union organisations lobbying for workers’ rights or whatever—seems almost like manufacturing a market in this area.

Kelvin Hopkins: Just recently, there has been something of a controversy about the BBC receiving some millions of pounds from the European Union for educational purposes—no doubt educating us all about the wonders of the EU. Does the hon. Gentleman not think that if organisations that are supposed to be independent and impartial take large sums of money from the EU, it might have some influence on them?

Chris Heaton-Harris: Again, I would like to think not. I follow what the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friends have been doing on the European Scrutiny Committee. There has been a long and ongoing dialogue with the BBC, as I know because I was a member of the Committee over the last five years running up to the mandate of this Parliament. I hesitate to look in the direction of my Scottish National party colleagues, because I have a feeling they might have a view on partiality and the BBC when it comes to certain matters.

Alex Salmond: Listening to the hon. Gentleman, I am wondering whether the BBC finds it more difficult when an organisation such as the European Commission gives it money or more difficult in respect of human rights when money is taken away, as is being done by the UK Government?

Natascha Engel: Order. In talking about the BBC, we are straying quite far from debating a narrow Bill.

Chris Heaton-Harris: Forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I did rather provoke reaction from my SNP colleagues, because I wanted to prove the point that when questions are raised about the partiality of an organisation, either through its funding or its actions, it could devalue that organisation’s input into something important, such as a European referendum.
	Let me return to the point about who our EU social partners are in this dialogue that we are facilitating through the Bill. As I have said, in 2014 the European Trade Union Confederation received €4 million from EU institutions and spent more than €1 million of that money lobbying those same EU institutions on legislation. In 2013 the CEEP—the European Centre of Employers and Enterprises providing Public Services—spent €120,000 lobbying the European Union and received €155,000 from the EU’s directorate-general for employment.
	I question the added value of the dialogue at the tripartite social summit for growth and employment. Like many things in the European Union, its title is motherhood and apple pie. Who could possibly be against a tripartite social summit for growth and employment? However, if it delivers very little and if the only people who attend it and talk to the European Commission are actually paid by the Commission to do so, that will be a significant issue because the conversation will simply go round in ever-decreasing circles.
	The EU social partners have agreed to a number of things in the recent past, and they wish to discuss important matters. They have agreed to
	“negotiate an autonomous framework agreement on active ageing and an inter-generational approach”.
	That is obviously something we need to discuss at a national level, not to mention the European level. They have also agreed to
	“step up efforts to improve the implementation of their autonomous framework agreements, with a specific focus on the 8-10 Member States where the implementation has been identified as insufficient”.
	This group is going to lobby for more European regulation and harsher implementation of directives.
	The social partners’ work programme also notes that they have agreed to
	“highlight the importance of more public and private investments”—
	I imagine that Labour Members would like to have a conversation about that, especially given their new leadership—
	“in order to reach an optimal growth, to boost job creation and to revive EU industrial base”.
	The joint working programme also wants to “prepare joint conclusions” on things that we would all wish to see, including
	“promoting better reconciliation of work, private and family life and gender equality to reduce the gender pay gap”.
	I cannot believe that any Member of this House would not want to achieve that. However, given that the European Commission pays indirectly for this group of people to turn up once every six months to talk about these things, and given that they have already done so for quite some time without any concrete achievements—in fact, some of those ideals may have gone into reverse during that time—perhaps we should question the validity of supporting such a social summit for growth and employment.
	Another of the work programme objectives—this did not become controversial until quite recently—is to
	“contribute to the efforts of the EU institutions to develop a mobility package, to address loopholes and enforcement issues on worker mobility and to promote mobility of apprenticeships.”
	This country is currently having a debate about mobility and, indeed, the freedom of movement of workers and others. It is interesting that we are promoting such a debate—our European partners are also having a big debate on the very same issue—while at the same time funding a summit of the worthy and the good to discuss the same thing.

Kelvin Hopkins: The great constitutionalist, Walter Bagehot, said that there are two parts to the constitution: the decorative and the effective. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the body under discussion is one of the more decorative rather than effective parts of the EU constitution?

Chris Heaton-Harris: I probably do, yes. I hate to beat around the bush: I do not think it is worth funding this organisation. It is duplication for duplication’s sake. Given the number of other direct opportunities available to the bodies that will attend the summit to influence the thinking of the European Commission, member states and others, I really do question the value of the group. Obviously, that is why I am on my feet asking the Minister why it is, when we have an opportunity to prevent duplication and to prevent some of the European budget from being spent, we do not actually take it.
	I want to ask a number of questions along those lines. Article 152 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union states that the EU will set up the social dialogue while respecting the autonomy of the organisations, but can those organisations and bodies that attend the summit truly be autonomous when they are funded by the EU? Will they not be a taxpayer-funded echo chamber?
	What authority has the EU had until now if the former decision on hosting summits was based on an old article treaty? Article 152 states that the EU should respect the “diversity of national systems”. Given that our national system does not include such summits, can the Government guarantee that the outcome of the meetings will not have an effect on the European Commission’s work programme—in other words, the very programme to which the summit wants to provide input? Is there an estimate of how much the six-monthly meetings will cost, and will the UK choose to host them when it takes over the presidency of the EU in 2017?
	The Commission’s directorate-general for employment, social affairs and inclusion has regular dialogue with all the parties that will attend the summit, and there are other EU bodies that do exactly the same thing. When voting on such matters, this place has been almost unanimously in favour of cutting the duplication of European spending. We need to make sure that this country’s massive contribution to the European Commission and Europe is spent more wisely. Given that I have some form in this area—I was a Member of the European Parliament for 10 years and raised many budgetary questions about the issues under discussion—I question the value of approving the Bill.

Stephen Gethins: It is interesting that this Bill underlines some of the positive work of the European Union. I am sure that Members across the House will welcome that, particularly at a time when we are debating our future in that Union.
	First, may I associate myself with some of the excellent comments the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) made about child poverty? He also made an excellent point about the way in which tax credits were debated last week.
	This debate is about the draft decision on the Republic of Macedonia becoming an observer in the work of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, as well as the decision on the tripartite social summit for growth and employment. I am sure that Members across the House will agree that the European Union’s expansion in 2004 was one of its great triumphs. It was a triumph both for Europe and, through our contribution to it, for the United Kingdom, and it has been good for us ever since.
	Although they are not there yet and a great deal is yet to be done, I look forward to Macedonia and the other countries of the western Balkans joining the European Union, and hope that the decision on observer status is a step along the way. We have a great deal of work to do, but plugging the gap between Greece and Croatia will be welcome.
	Giving Macedonia observer status may give it the help it currently needs. The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) spoke earlier today about refugees, and I and others have pointed out that those countries that are least able to deal with the influx and weight of refugees to Europe are those that are taking the greatest strain, not least Macedonia. It is clear from the current refugee crisis that some front-line states can be helped in that regard. It would, of course, be a great help if the United Kingdom could take its fair share of refugees. That does not seem to be forthcoming, but access to the work of some of the EU agencies could also help. It would be interesting to hear from Ministers what assistance the UK is giving the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, with particular reference to the refugee crisis faced by the western Balkan countries.
	Secondly, I want to say a little about the tripartite summit. I am sure Members on both sides of the House will agree that, given the positive impact that the European Union has had on social issues for many years—my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh) is likely to comment on that point—the summit will play an important role in emphasising the social dimension of growth and employment between states, and the impact of EU policies on workers as well as executives. An approach that includes trade unionists, businesses and many others can only be a good thing, and in that respect the European Union has led the way in the past.
	Finally, let me make a broader point. I think that the Bill shows us how the European Union brings added value to our daily lives. It helps to promote fundamental rights, and today’s debate is especially pertinent in the light of the refugee crisis. I also think that the Bill underlines the need for us to remain part of the European Union, and—this was touched on by the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris)—the ability of the UK Parliament to scrutinise European Union legislation. I often think that politicians, here and elsewhere in the EU, can be a bit lazy sometimes in hiding behind decisions that the EU has made. We must bear in mind the role that the UK Parliament ought to play, and I should welcome an increased scrutiny role for the devolved Administrations as well.

John Redwood: rose—

Stephen Gethins: I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman, if he wishes to take up my point about parliamentary scrutiny.

John Redwood: What does the hon. Gentleman think would happen if we said no?

Stephen Gethins: We shall have to see whether the people say yes or no, but I think that the scrutiny—

John Redwood: What would happen if our Parliament suddenly decided to vote this down? Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that that is a possibility?

Stephen Gethins: I can only speak for Members on the SNP Benches, who will not be voting no. I know that the right hon. Gentleman cannot speak for those on his side of the House—in fact, the leaders of both sides of the House can barely speak for those on their own Benches at the moment—but at least we are unified on our Benches. We will not be voting against the Bill today.
	As I was saying, we can be lazy when it comes to European Union decisions. We must adopt a more honest approach: we must become more critical, and when we have backed EU decisions, we must be more open about it.

John Redwood: We have just been given a wonderful illustration of why our democracy does not work in relation to any European subject. The hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) pretended not to have understood my question, but what would happen if the United Kingdom Parliament suddenly voted against a solemn decision of the European Union? Because the hon. Gentleman is not prepared to countenance that idea, he simply says “I do not want to”, but many of our constituents would like us to stand up to the European Union and start to change it, and one of the reasons why they would like us to change it is the very topic of this debate.
	We are being invited to agree to a change in the arrangements whereby we debate and consult, and try to grapple with the huge problem of mass unemployment and austerity which is so visible in the south of our continent, and which was largely brought about by the euro scheme. Today, all that we hear is the usual nonsense: “Because one or two things that the European Union does are fine, we will not grapple with the real issues.” Where are the voices against European austerity on the Opposition Benches?

Stephen Gethins: The right hon. Gentleman is right to raise that point, but does he agree that the devolved Administrations should also be given greater powers of scrutiny as part of this process?

John Redwood: That is a debate for another day. We are not here to debate the relative powers of the different parts of the United Kingdom. At present, the member of the European Union is the United Kingdom, and we are in the United Kingdom’s Parliament. It is part of my case that we have precious few powers left to make major changes in relation to things that really matter on the continent. I want to explore, briefly, what we can do to engage with the problems of mass unemployment and the huge migrations of people who are unhappy with their lot in other European Union countries, and what we can do about the austerity policies that are so deep and vicious in parts of the European Union, having been visited on countries such as Greece, Spain and Portugal by the European Union and the euro itself.

Angus MacNeil: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for taking him back to the beginning of his speech, when he said that he would like this Parliament to vote down something from the European Union, or at least try to do so. Had he anything in specific in mind, or was he just looking for a genuine fight with the European Union? I ask that question, quite openly, for the purpose of illustration.

John Redwood: The illustration that I was using was that there are now large areas in which this Parliament is not allowed to vote against something that the European Union is doing—because it has been pre-agreed, because we have been out-voted, because it is a consequence of a treaty that some previous Government signed years ago, or because it is the result of a decision by the European Court of Justice. Do Opposition Members not see that we are losing our democracy? We are losing our right to disagree with European decisions in this place, and we are losing our right to assert our wish to do things differently. I do not want to choose any one particular thing, but I could name at least 100 things which come from the European Union that I wish were better and different, because I think that they get in the way of prosperity, better wages and a better lifestyle for my constituents and others in my country.
	That, however, is not the point. The question that we are debating today is whether, by means of the minor set of improvements contained in the Bill, we can have any impact on the hugely important issues of the breakdown of employment, the denial of opportunity to half the young people in large swathes of the south of our continent, and the effect that the euro scheme is having on people’s prosperity and life prospects. I find it extraordinary that an Opposition who are—sometimes rightly—full of passion on behalf of anyone in Britain who does not have enough income, cannot bring themselves to say a single word for the tens of millions of people on our continent who are being very badly affected by this dreadful scheme. They should think about all those young people who are out of work. How would they like to represent constituencies in which young people knew that they had had only a one in two chance of getting a job?

Alex Salmond: Was not the right hon. Gentleman’s political heroine the late Lady Thatcher, who pursued majority voting—which, by definition, means accepting some decisions with which one did not agree—in order to complete the European single market?

John Redwood: She did indeed, but she was not my heroine. I have great admiration for the late former Prime Minister, and I gave her a great deal of advice. Part of my advice was that she should not surrender those powers under the Single European Act, for the very reason that the right hon. Gentleman has correctly identified. Unfortunately, although she accepted a lot of my advice, she did not accept my advice on two very important matters: majority voting in the European Union, and the poll tax or community charge. However, I do not think we have time to explore the question of what would have been better outcomes in the case of those two issues.
	I just hope that our Ministers, if they insist on whitewashing this through, as no doubt they will—no doubt they will have the votes to do so—will also ensure that this body does something useful for a change. As my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) has already demonstrated, it is obvious that although they can range very widely, and can lobby and discuss a number of fundamental issues that matter to people throughout the European Union but especially in the euro area, they have been unsuccessful to date. Clearly this “social committee” has not been a voice against austerity policies in Greece, Portugal or Spain that has had any resonance. Clearly it has not been a voice for more employment. Clearly it has not been a voice for dealing with the problem that a great many southern countries are locked in a currency union with Germany at the wrong exchange rate, which has put them into poverty and unemployment.

Angus MacNeil: The right hon. Gentleman is making a fantastic speech as a Greek nationalist against the evils of a Union Parliament that is holding all the powers to itself, and, indeed, against anti-austerity. I do not want to castigate or to pigeonhole him, but we are seeing great progress in the debate. If the European Union is achieving one thing, perhaps it is achieving that.

John Redwood: If the hon. Gentleman was interested in my views and had read any of them, he would know I have consistently over the years wanted more work, better paid work, people to own shares, people to own homes. I believe in prosperity, not austerity, as I regularly try to remind him. I want that for our continent, but we are not going to get it for our continent under the system we have today, but I am beginning to stray a little wide of the detail of this Bill.
	In summary, I urge our Ministers to make sure of two things: first, that there genuinely is no extra cost to British taxpayers because so far this body has achieved nothing and is part of the problem, not of the answer; secondly, that, if they can, they start putting on the agenda of Europe the scandal of unemployment, the scourge of austerity, and the dreadful mess the euro is making of the economies to the south, because they are our friends and potential market, but I do not want them to be our country.

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: The SNP will support this Bill today for the reasons most eloquently set out earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins). We will support it in practice as these are sensible and straightforward matters, but we also support the principles behind the legislation.
	First, we support the work of the EU and the important role it plays through the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights in protecting our rights as European citizens. I particularly look forward to the opportunity of going through the Lobby today alongside many Government Members, united in our full and unambiguous support for the work the European institutions are doing in this vital area. It would be remiss of me not to comment on the fact that it is a little ironic, however, that as other countries are knocking on the door of the EU, looking to benefit from the work it does on our behalf, this Government are committed to providing the means for the UK to leave the most successful union of states in the world today.
	Secondly, the SNP wholeheartedly supports the work to improve dialogue between European institutions and employers and workers’ representatives through the tripartite social summit for growth and employment. Working in partnership with trade unions and employers is fundamental to improving our economic foundations and driving economic growth. If only the Government took this advice when drafting the current Dickensian Trade Union Bill before us. I agree with President Juncker who recently stated that he desires a recovery based on social fairness. This summit will play a key role in delivering this and that is why it will have our support today.

Alex Salmond: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for squeezing me into this vastly over- subscribed debate. That brings me to one of only two points I wish to make. The purpose of the Bill is to fulfil the requirement in section 8 of the European Union Act 2011 that EU legislative proposals made on the basis of the catch-all article 352 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union be approved by an Act of Parliament before the UK Government can support them in the Council of the European Union. That is presumably why the debate is so vastly oversubscribed.
	Despite the clear lack of interest in the debate, as evidenced by the relatively sparse attendance in the Chamber, the usual channels have chosen not to timetable the Bill. We could speak until 7 o’clock. I could do so—I really could—and be perfectly in order, and the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) could have spoken for far longer if he had chosen to do so. Yet we have this open-ended timing today—there is no regulation that says a Second Reading has to take even a half-day—whereas next Monday Scottish Members are expected to cram in Government amendments to the Scotland Bill and its Third Reading. The contrast between the two timetables indicates the Government’s total lack of respect for the need to prioritise the House’s business in accordance with Members’ interest in contributing. I hope that the Government will take that on board.

John Redwood: Does it not also illustrate that the official Opposition never have anything to say about the EU and never want to say anything about it? However, should they not have a view on it?

Alex Salmond: The fact that the Bill is so full of motherhood, apple pie and things that even the right hon. Gentleman finds difficulty in disagreeing with, as we heard in his speech, illustrates that even the serried ranks of Euroscepticism could scarce forbear to cheer this particular piece of legislation.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: rose—

Alex Salmond: I give way to one of the few Labour Members who are here.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: The right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) raised the issue of the official Opposition’s view on the EU. I am sure he heard that at the conclusion of my speech I praised the work the EU has done in improving workers’ rights. I would say that without the EU we would not have the workers’ rights in the UK that we have today.

Alex Salmond: My estimation of the official Opposition is that they are currently unified in their disunity and have, indeed, raised disunity to an art form, the latest example being over the Trident missile system on the River Clyde. I must congratulate the official Opposition on how they relish that aspect of disunity. There is an outbreak of debate and discussion in the Labour party that certainly was never allowed during the Blair years. We should relish the freedom of speech the Opposition now have, even if we note that there are very few Labour Members here to exercise that freedom in the current debate.

Graham Stringer: The right hon. Gentleman is always amusing, but before he started scoring party political points he was making a significant constitutional point about the power of this House over our own schedules and timetables. Does he agree we should return the control of our own agenda to the House and take it off the Government?

Alex Salmond: As somebody who has been in government, I have to say that views on such matters can undergo a transition. There was debate earlier about representation in the Council of Europe, on which I would think Members throughout the House would be wise to insist on greater control and discretion. I think the Government would benefit from that; they may not realise it initially, but I think they would. That might be a good illustration of what the hon. Gentleman says, and there are a number of mechanisms by which it could be done. Also, I do not think he should underrate party politics; most of us have been engaged in it at one time or another.
	The second point I want to make concerns the explanatory notes that accompany the Bill. With regard to the European convention on human rights, it is stated:
	“Priti Patel has made the following statement under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998:
	In my view the provisions of the European Union (Approvals) Bill [HL] are compatible with the Convention rights.”
	One reason why the Bill is relatively non-controversial is that we recognise and welcome the progress that Macedonia is making under the observation of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, located in Vienna. In welcoming that development, it occurs to me that that is another illustration of how foolhardy it would be for the Government to proceed with their plans to withdraw from the European convention in some form or other. We would find ourselves in an invidious position not just when debating issues such as this but in making representations on a range of issues. As First Minister of Scotland I did not just have to sign certificates saying that legislation was in accordance with the European convention; every act of a Scottish Minister has to conform to the European convention on human rights. Of course there are occasions when that can be inconvenient or even frustrating, but, significantly, my experience has told me that that is actually a very good and useful check on the actions of Government.
	Earlier today we witnessed a most astonishing display of arrogance from a Minister at the Dispatch Box. In Justice questions, a Minister was asked specifically about withdrawal from the European convention and waved the question aside on the basis that it is up to the House and the Government to decide whether or not to be in the convention, and for the devolved authorities to administer it once that decision is made. I think the Government will find that that sort of attitude comes back to apply some severe retribution to them. The Government might be noted for that sort of insouciance and arrogance, but it does them no credit or good whatever. The devolved authorities, not just in Scotland but in Northern Ireland and Wales, are not in accordance with the Government’s view on the European convention, and the idea of watering down our commitment to it in some form is going to be totally unacceptable to the devolved nations. I suggest to the Government that they should think again.
	My last point is that given the lack of interest and participation in this debate in the House, the very reasonable proposition put forward by my colleagues that the Scottish Parliament should be given more scrutiny power over European Council or European Parliament decisions is an excellent one. If people do not have the appetite to scrutinise those decisions in this Chamber, why not send the legislation to Parliaments and Assemblies where that appetite and desire exists?

Angus MacNeil: rose—

Alex Salmond: I give way to the Chair of the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change.

Angus MacNeil: It should be noted for the record that as my right hon. Friend said that, there were nods from some Tory Members, which should be taken as encouragement for Scotland to take that scrutiny forward.

Alex Salmond: Not only that, but my hon. Friend is an excellent example of how someone can pursue duties as a Select Committee Chair and contribute massively to debates on the Floor of this Chamber. If we all followed his example, the House and Parliament would be a better place today. With that, I shall bring my remarks to a close, unless anybody wants to tempt me with another 30 interventions.

Priti Patel: I thank all Members for their contributions to the debate.
	The Bill will approve two draft Council decisions, the first of which, as has been discussed, relates to the participation of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia as an observer in the work of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’s objective is to become a member of the European Union, but it needs to implement key reform priorities, as set out by the Commission. The Government want to encourage it on the path of reform, and granting observer status in the agency is consistent with that approach. The decision will allow the agency to collect, analyse and disseminate data on the human rights situation in the country. It will also allow the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to participate in the agency’s activities. The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia should be supported to increase its human rights awareness and the promotion of fundamental rights within the country.
	The second measure relates to the tripartite social summit. The summit has met for a number of years, and the draft decision will re-establish the legal basis for it. Just to be clear, it does not confer any new rights or competence on the EU. I want to restate that there are no financial implications, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) highlighted.

Bob Stewart: But there must be financial implications, because EU civil servants will be working and someone will probably be appointed to supervise this activity. That is a financial implication.

Priti Patel: There are no new financial implications, as I said clearly in my opening remarks. On that basis, I commend the Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time.

European Union (Approvals) Bill [Lords] (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the European Union (Approvals) Bill [Lords]:
	Committal
	(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
	Proceedings in Committee, on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading
	(2) Proceedings in Committee, any proceedings on Consideration and any proceedings in legislative grand committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee of the whole House.
	(3) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee of the whole House.
	Programming committee
	(4) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to other proceedings up to and including Third Reading.
	Other proceedings
	(5) Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of any message from the Lords) may be programmed. —(Guy Opperman.)
	Question agreed to.

NATIONAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS (RATE CEILINGS) BILL (PROGRAMME) (NO. 2)

Ordered,
	That the following provisions shall apply to the National Insurance Contributions (Rate Ceilings) Bill in place of paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Order of 15 September 2015:
	(1) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion, at today’s sitting, two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this order.
	(2) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion, at today’s sitting, three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this order.—(Guy Opperman.)

National Insurance Contributions (Rate Ceilings) Bill

Bill, not amended in the Public Bill Committee, considered.
	Third Reading

David Gauke: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	We have now reached the final stage of this House’s deliberations on this Bill, which implements our manifesto commitment not to increase national insurance contributions—NICs—for employers and employees. On Second Reading, hon. Members were reminded of the Government’s strong record of significantly reducing the burden of NICs on employers. At Budget 2011, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a £21 a week above-inflation increase to the employer NICs threshold. In 2014, we introduced the employment allowance to support businesses and charities across the UK by reducing their employer NICs bills by up to £2,000 every year, and this has already benefited more than 1 million employers. The Government are now going further; hon. Members will recall that the Chancellor announced at the summer Budget that this would be increased to £3,000 from next April. From April 2015, the vast majority of employers employing under-21s were lifted out of employer NICs. This NICs exemption will be extended to cover apprentices who are under 25, supporting employers to provide young people with valuable workplace skills. The Bill enacts the Government’s commitment to provide certainty on NICs rates for the duration of this Parliament. Hon. Members will be aware that the commitment contained in the manifesto was not to increase the main rates of income tax, VAT or NICs. The Finance Bill contained measures to deliver that commitment for income tax and VAT, and this Bill delivers on that commitment for NICs.
	Let me now deal with the detail of the Bill. First, it provides that the rate of class 1 NICs paid by employees and employers must not exceed existing rates. Secondly, it has been the convention that the level of the upper earnings limit for NICs is aligned with the level of the higher rate threshold for income tax. This Bill formally limits increases to the UEL so that its annual equivalent amount cannot exceed the level of the HRT for income tax. Both the restriction on NICs rates rises and changes to the UEL come into force on Royal Assent of this Bill, and apply until the start of the tax year following the date of the first parliamentary general election to take place after Royal Assent.
	This Bill provides certainty for employers and employees: that the NICs rates that affect millions of employees and employers across the UK will not rise for the duration of this Parliament; and that the UEL will not exceed the HRT for income tax.

John Redwood: My hon. Friend will agree with me that more jobs would be a very good thing and that better-paid jobs for people are a very good thing. He is saying that there will not be any increases but he is presumably not ruling out cutting taxes on jobs, because the less we tax, the more jobs we might have.

David Gauke: To be very clear, this is a cap, not a freeze. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for allowing me to make that point.
	I thank the hon. Members who have participated in our debates on this Bill, both on the Floor of the House on Second Reading and in Committee. The Bill has not detained the House for any great length of time, but I am grateful for those contributions. The Bill demonstrates the Government’s commitment to provide certainty on tax rates for the duration of this Parliament, and I commend it to the House.

Rebecca Long-Bailey: As we have heard, this Bill enacts the Conservatives’ manifesto pledge not to increase NICs in this Parliament. It is part of their wider pledge to cap income tax, VAT and national insurance contributions. The Bill contains only three substantive clauses and, as we have heard, no amendments have been tabled for consideration today. Clause 1 creates a “tax lock” for employee NICs, capping the rates of employee class 1 NICs to 12% and setting the additional percentage to 2% for the duration of this Parliament. Clause 2 freezes the rate of employer NICs by setting the maximum secondary percentage payable by employers at 13.8%. By doing so, it also fixes the class 1A and 1B contributions. Clause 3 links the upper earnings limit to the higher rate income tax threshold by setting out that it shall not exceed the weekly equivalent of the proposed higher rate threshold for that tax year. In practice, that means that employees stop paying class 1 national insurance contributions at the 12% rate when their income reaches the higher rate income tax threshold. Thereafter, the rate of national contribution is 2%.
	As the Minister is aware, my Labour colleagues are not opposed to the principle of maintaining the rates of national insurance contributions. Indeed, it was Labour that, on 25 March, first committed to halt any increase, and I am pleased that the Conservatives heeded our wise advice. It is just one of our many pre-election pledges that the Chancellor has chosen to implement.
	However, without wishing to repeat what has already been said by my colleagues in previous debates, I question the need to implement legislation that forces the Government to keep their own election pledges—surely they should do that anyway. The Chancellor also seemed to share my sentiments back in 2009 when he stated:
	“No other Chancellor in the long history of the office has felt the need to pass a law in order to convince people that he has the political will to implement his own Budget.”
	Indeed, he went on to suggest that only two conclusions could be drawn from such an occurrence:
	“Either the Chancellor has lost confidence in himself to stick to his resolution, and is, so to speak, asking the police to help him, or he fears that everyone else has lost confidence in his ability to keep his word”. —[Official Report, 26 November 2009; Vol. 501, c. 708.]

John Redwood: I thought that the previous Labour Government enacted legislation to bring down the budget deficit, because they could not trust themselves with the money, and they were perhaps wise about that.

Rebecca Long-Bailey: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point, but I am citing what the current Chancellor has stated.
	I question which of the scenarios the Government feel is applicable. The Government have argued during the passage of this Bill that legislation is required to ensure that the market has confidence in their keeping their election promises. It leads to the question why the Chancellor thinks that the electorate and businesses will not simply trust his word. In addition, the Government promised before the 2010 election that they would not raise VAT, but then proceeded to do quite the opposite. Indeed, in the previous Parliament, the Chancellor raised taxes 24 times despite waxing lyrical about creating a low tax, high pay economy. The director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies said of the most recent Budget:
	“The figures are quite clear though - this was a tax-raising Budget.”
	Perhaps the Chancellor has lost confidence in himself. That is not surprising given that he has missed all of his deficit reduction targets for the past five years.
	I fear that legislating in this manner is only a political gimmick to convince the market and the electorate that the Government are not increasing taxes when, in fact, tax policy measures in the Budget are expected to raise £5.1 billion by 2018, rising to £6.5 billion by 2021.
	Putting that issue to one side, I must once again stress my concern that the Government are severely limiting their options should the economy take a turn for the worst. This summer, the Bank for International Settlements stated simply that this is
	“a world in which debt levels are too high, productivity growth too weak and financial risks too threatening.”
	The feeble recovery that we have seen thus far is built on private debt, which leaves us with a ticking time bomb. The IFS predicts that house prices will rocket across the whole of the UK, most drastically in London, leading to levels of household debt exceeding those of 2008 at the time of the credit crunch.
	The warning signs are there and I harbour grave concerns that the Government are simply not paying attention. My sentiments are shared by many commentators, including the director of the IFS, who said that it would be
	“extreme to tie your hands for such a long period of time with the main rates of the three largest taxes.”
	Particularly worrying is the fact that the Chancellor’s spending plans are predicated on
	“a forecasted rise in revenue yield from NICs.”
	That fact was highlighted by the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie). However, should the yield be less than forecast, due to an economic downturn, what will the Chancellor do? He cannot, according to his own legislation, raise VAT, income tax or national insurance contributions. Would further cuts be imposed on public expenditure at precisely the time economic stimulus would be needed?
	In Committee, the Minister assured us that, in such a circumstance, the measures before us today would not endanger the fund or be an excuse to undermine the NHS. However, he did enter the caveat that such an assurance was predicated on the Government making “difficult choices” on public spending and
	“identifying savings in the welfare budget”.––[Official Report, National Insurance Contributions (Rate Ceilings) Bill Public Bill Committee, 27 October 2015; c. 18.]
	I fear that what he meant was that far from legislating on their election promises on the Government’s tax credit work penalty, they have ripped them up within months of taking office.
	In conclusion, we will not oppose this Bill as before the general election we also committed to capping national insurance contributions. However, it is not an effective use of precious parliamentary time and resources, and I do hope that the Minister will bear that in mind for the future.

Stewart Hosie: If the European Union Bill was undersubscribed, this is even more so. Is it such an important Bill, or will we discover that it is not really necessary at all?
	The Bill is designed to prevent any increase in the current rates of class 1, class 1A and class 1B national insurance contributions paid by employees and employers for the duration of this Parliament. The Minister said that it would also provide that each of the annual upper earnings limits could not exceed the higher rate threshold—the sum of the personal allowance and the income tax basic rate limit.
	As I said on Second Reading—I am happy to put it on the record again today—there is absolutely nothing wrong with any Government providing certainty in the tax code for the duration of their term in office, but let us be clear that we do not need legislation to do that. Legislation is simply a gimmick.
	I also said on Second Reading that these proposals should not have come as a surprise because, as the Minister has just said, they were included in the Conservative election manifesto. In many ways, this small three clause Bill is utterly pointless. The real failing with it is that it represents a wasted opportunity.
	In July, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury commissioned the Office for Tax Simplification to review the interplay between income tax and NICs. He said:
	“I would like the Office of Tax Simplification to look at what the impacts, costs and benefits of closer alignment would be and to set out what the necessary steps would be to achieve closer alignment.”
	But this Bill does nothing to help deliver the perceived benefits of closer alignment, and does not offer any real progress towards tax simplification overall.
	John Whiting, tax director of the OTS, gave evidence in Committee. He argued that, although the maintenance of rate levels represented a simplification of the system as it removed some uncertainty, it could represent a complication of the tax system overall if the Government were to make changes to other taxes to compensate for the tax lock. The measure also introduces an inherent inflexibility.
	Jonathan Portes of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research has been quoted before. In particular his comment that the pledge not to increase the main taxes
	“considerably reduces our flexibility if things turn out different from expected. This is why I have absolutely no doubt that Treasury and Bank of England officials were tearing their hair out at this.”
	Yet I am not aware—and I have asked the question before—of what discussions, if any, the Minister or the Chancellor have had with the central bank about these proposals.
	I also explained on Second Reading the complexity of the NICs regime. I will not go through that all again, but there is a complex series of employee, employer and self- employed NICs. There are class 1, class 2, and class 4 profit-related contributions, with primary and secondary thresholds, small profits thresholds and lower and upper profits limits. In all of those, the limits and thresholds are different and the rates paid above and below the various thresholds are different. Surely this Bill should have been the opportunity to iron out those inconsistencies in the NICs system. It is yet another wasted opportunity to make the whole system more straightforward.
	I also said on Second Reading that individuals may be entitled to make voluntary class 3 contributions to avoid or fill gaps in their national insurance record to ensure that they qualify for basic retirement pension and bereavement benefits. But as yet there appears to be no answer to the question of whether more or fewer people will make additional voluntary contributions as a result of this so-called tax lock.
	It is also the case—and this point was alluded to by the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey)—that most NICs receipts are paid into the national insurance fund, which is separate from all of the other revenue raised by taxation. The fund is used exclusively to pay for contributory benefits. If the revenue yield from NICs does not rise in the heroic way planned, can we expect to see cuts directed at the contributory benefits for which people have already paid? That is an important question given that the Minister was quizzed in Committee on the impact of the freeze on the national insurance fund.
	It is doubly important given that the Centre for Policy Studies reported in 2014 that the surplus in the national insurance fund had fallen from £53 billion in 2009 to £29.1 billion in 2013. It warned that, as a result of persistent negative real earnings growth, fund exhaustion could transpire as early as 2016. That was echoed by the Treasury’s own figures, which have shown that the fund was able to cover 71% of liabilities in 2009 but that that fell to 25% in 2014. Perhaps the Minister can confirm whether, as is being speculated, the fund might fall below 16.7% of its liabilities this year, which is the minimum recommended by the Government Actuary’s Department. The measure might actually be storing up problems for the future and we still do not know for certain what behavioural change, if any, might be likely following these measures. We have also not yet heard any confirmation of the consequences for spending and other taxes that flow from this measure.
	We know the level of discretionary consolidation tax rises and cuts being planned by the Minister and how they are meant to be paid for, but the entire spending plan is predicated on NICs bringing in £115 billion this year and £126 billion next year, rising to £152 billion in 2020-21. That is a forecast rise in revenue yield of 9.6%, 4.3% and 4.7% the year after that, so, even at this late stage, there is one question that the Minister must answer. Given the arbitrary freeze on NICs and other taxes, should the forecast yield be significantly less than expected will other taxes rise, and if so, which ones, or will the Chancellor take the axe to yet further spending, perhaps pensions? Or will borrowing rise and will the deficit reduction forecast simply be abandoned, delivering the same failure as we saw in the previous Parliament?
	We will not oppose the Bill, even though it is rather pointless, but finally, and most importantly, I said a moment ago that the majority of NICs receipts are paid into the national insurance fund, which is used exclusively to pay for contributory benefits, so may we have a cast-iron guarantee that this Bill is not the start of an attack on the contributory principle that applies to NICs in the UK?

John Redwood: I welcomed the manifesto pledge and am very pleased that we know that for five years there will be no increases in the major tax rates. I listened carefully to the Labour response, and one of the worries expressed was what would happen if there were a cyclical downturn or if the economy hit a bad time because of a world recession or something similar. As I am sure the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) knows, it is common policy between the major parties in this House that if that happens we will normally borrow more. If revenues fall because people have lost their jobs and are not earning so much, and if costs have gone up because more people are out of work, which we do not foresee and do not wish, it is quite sensible to borrow a bit more to help the economy through the difficulties. Fortunately, the official and external forecasts say that we can look forward to several years of continuing progress and growth, as we have had since 2009, so, we trust, the problem will not arise. I think that that answers her point.

Stewart Hosie: The right hon. Gentleman would be right in normal circumstances, but we now have the fiscal charter. Given that it has a rolling four-quarter on four-quarter comparison, if forecasts begin to fall the automatic stabilisers might not necessarily kick in in the way that he has described, which was traditionally the case.

John Redwood: I think that we would make a judgment at the time, but fortunately we do not have to make that judgment now. If we should get into that awful position, I am sure that there will be a lot of debate in this House. He and I might even share the same view, or we might have a difference of view. We would have to judge it on the figures and on the merits of the case.
	On this side of the House, we regard having more people in jobs as a very good thing and want to promote better pay, particularly for those whose pay is very low and needs topping up with benefits. I buy into the Government’s vision that we want more people in work and more people in better-paid work, with less benefit top-up needing to be paid. They should be better off as a result of these changes.
	In the course of proceedings this afternoon on this Bill and on the European Union (Approvals) Bill, we have been told that not enough time has been allocated to debate tax credits. I recall that we have had three major debates on that subject quite recently, and three votes, and the House has come to the same view on each occasion. This is another such opportunity. I note that Opposition Members have not come to the Chamber, but it seems to me to fall quite within the remit of the
	Bill, which is about how to tax work and what people keep as a result of work, to discuss tax credits as another part of the equation. I see the Bill as an important part of the Government’s strategy of making work pay.
	We regard work as a good thing, as I trust all parties do, and we do not really want to be taxing good things. Unfortunately, however, we live in a world where we need a lot of revenue, so we end up taxing good things as well as bad things. However, where we have the chance to shift the balance, surely it makes sense to tax the good things less, such as work and earnings, so that people can have more opportunity of finding a job and of keeping more from a better-paid job. We can then find less desirable things that we are more prepared to tax, as well as running sensible value-for-money government so that the overall demands are not too great.
	The danger, if one went down the route of opposing the Bill, is that it might become all too easy to put an extra 1% or 2% on national insurance. One might say that people would not notice it, but it would have two immediate adverse effects. First, there would be fewer jobs as it is a direct tax on jobs and, secondly, employees would be worse off because of the effect on their contribution and we would have to find more money under our scheme for tax credits or other top-ups.
	In conclusion, it is excellent that my party intends to keep its clear promises to keep these tax rates down, which I fully supported and campaigned on. We must see it as part of the wider debate, and today is another opportunity to debate national insurance in the context of tax credits. If we keep taxes down or reduce them more, there is more scope to deal with the tax credit problem.

David Gauke: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to respond to the points raised by right hon. and hon. Members in this short debate. Before I do so, may I reiterate the main purpose of the Bill? It introduces the final aspect of the five-year tax lock, which is further proof of the Government’s commitment to provide certainty on tax rates for the duration of this Parliament and the commitment to low levels of taxation made in the Conservative manifesto for the general election in May, which resulted in a Conservative majority in that election. The commitment was that the rates of income tax, VAT and NICs would not increase. The Finance Bill introduced legislation to deliver that commitment for income tax and VAT, whereas this Bill delivers on the commitment for NICs. The benefits are that it provides certainty for employers and employees that for the duration of the Parliament NICs will not rise and the upper earnings limit will not exceed the higher rate threshold for income tax.
	We have heard the argument that it is not necessary to legislate in this regard, but I remind the House that it was a Conservative manifesto commitment to legislate and we are fulfilling that commitment. Concerns were also raised that the measure might restrict flexibility for future Governments, and the comment made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) about the circumstances that might apply in such cases was very good. I do not think that anybody would advocate in the teeth of a recession that we should put these rates up. Fiscal credibility is very important, of course, and our determination in that regard will be demonstrated at the spending review on 25 November. It is important that we bring borrowing down, but we do not believe we should do that by putting up national insurance contribution rates, which is what the Bill prevents us from doing.
	Future funding for contributory benefits, should NIC receipts prove insufficient, is a matter for the Chancellor and a decision to be made at the relevant fiscal event based on the latest projections available at the time and taking into account the NIC rate ceilings that we are introducing. The Government Actuary recommends a working balance of one sixth of benefit expenditure for the national insurance fund and there is provision to top up the national insurance fund from the Consolidated Fund to maintain the balance at that level. For the 2015-16 tax year a top-up of £9.6 billion has been provided for in legislation.
	Let me point out, though, first, that this Government are committed to meeting our commitments in terms of the state pension and spending on the NHS. Secondly, the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) raises concerns that the projections might not be accurate. These projections in relation to national insurance contribution rates are made by the Office for Budget Responsibility, an independent body. I can understand why the hon. Gentleman might have concerns in general about projections for tax revenues, given that he fought a referendum not that long ago assuming that the tax revenues from North sea oil would be very much more substantial than they have turned out to be. In those circumstances, I can understand his sensitivity to the fact that receipts might not be what had been anticipated. However, this is based upon an independent assessment and, in the round, is nothing like the fiscal risk that the Scottish National party was offering the Scottish people just over a year ago.

George Kerevan: Has the Treasury Minister forgotten that the North sea oil revenues go to HM Treasury and that the recent fall in income from the North sea proves the point to the Treasury that its forecasts can be wrong?

David Gauke: The proposition of the independence movement was much more optimistic about receipts than the OBR at the time of the referendum. Most important of all, the United Kingdom is more easily able to absorb a volatile oil price than an independent Scotland would be—a point that I would have thought anyone looking at this fairly had to accept.

Stewart Hosie: I will not be tempted by the Minister, however generally he put it, other than to say that he was wrong and that the UK Government’s barrel price for gas was higher than that used in Scotland. That is not the point. I completely understand the technical answer that the Minister has just given, but will he please answer the specific question: does this pose a threat to the contributory principle which applies to many of the benefits that people in the UK receive?

David Gauke: Let us be clear that the OBR’s projections for oil prices—those are the ones that the Government use—were much, much more cautious than those of the independence movement. The black hole that would be the finances of an independent Scotland, had the SNP succeeded in obtaining independence, would have been very considerable, and it is about time that those who campaigned for independence were straightforward with the British people and the Scottish people about what has happened.
	The Bill makes no change to the structure of national insurance contributions that would undermine the contributory principle. I am happy to make that explicit to the hon. Gentleman. I hope that is helpful to the House, and I hope the House will support the Bill before us.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Access to Medical Treatments (Innovation) Bill (Money)

Queen’s recommendation signified.

George Freeman: I beg to move,
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Access to Medical Treatments (Innovation) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.
	The House debated the Access to Medical Treatments (Innovation) Bill on Friday 16 October, when it received its Second Reading. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) for the huge amount of work that he put in to get the Bill to a point where it can enjoy majority support in this House and the other place, and for his open approach to dealing with all the stakeholders with an interest in it.
	I want to reiterate what I said on Second Reading. Although the Government support the intention behind the Bill to promote access to medical innovation—an intention which sits four-square within my ministerial responsibilities—the mechanisms of any Bill need to be considered on their merits. We are neither supporting nor opposing this Bill, but working with those with an interest in it and the sponsors to do what we can to help to get it to a place where it could contribute to the landscape for medical innovation that we are putting in place.
	This money resolution is not a signal of Government support or otherwise for the Bill; it is merely a convention of the House once a Bill has received its Second Reading. We have brought forward this resolution to allow the Bill to progress to Committee stage, reflecting that convention, and the will of the House for further debate.

Sarah Wollaston: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Government to be neutral on a Bill if the payroll vote is whipped for that vote?

Natascha Engel: That is a matter for the Government, rather than for the Chair.

George Freeman: The debate on Second Reading raised a large number of issues, which clearly need to be addressed and I have no doubt will be addressed in Committee. We cannot second-guess where that Committee will get to or the shape of any Bill that might subsequently return to the Floor of the House.
	The costs associated with this Bill, were it to be implemented in its current shape, arise from the establishment and maintenance of a database by the Health and Social Care Information Centre. Early discussions on costing with the HSCIC, which is leading on the construction of a number of databases and data streams crucial to the operation of the NHS, have provided an indicative costing of between £5 million and £15 million for developing the database of innovative medicines that the Bill anticipates.

John Baron: My hon. Friend has implied broad Government support for the Bill. Can he provide any evidence to suggest that litigation is preventing doctors from innovating in medical science and practice generally? That is the premise on which the Bill is based.

George Freeman: My hon. Friend makes a good point. That is the premise on which the Bill introduced by Lord Saatchi in the other place earlier in the year in the previous Parliament was predicated. My hon. Friend is right that it is a controversial proposition that fear of litigation for medical negligence is putting clinicians off innovating. The evidence that the Government received through the consultation was that some clinicians do feel that is a problem, but very few saw it as the principal problem or the principal obstacle. A number of clinicians made the point that several factors have acted in recent decades to slow down the rate of innovative prescribing and other procedures in surgery and elsewhere, not least increasing central control of procurement from NHS England, which puts in place very tight procurement guidelines, as well as a general sense of an increasingly litigious society, which is just one of a number of factors cited in an extensive range of barriers to innovation.

Philippa Whitford: Does the Minister not recognise the concern of the Association of Medical Research Charities and many within the profession about what the Bill opens up? The position when I started 30-odd years ago was that doctors could do what they liked. We have spent decades protecting people, slimming down the ethics paperwork to run trials, and I do not see that the Bill is necessary. I think it is dangerous. The problem is that people think it is about access to new drugs. It is not. Any drug that is licensed we can prescribe. This says that doctors can try what they like. That is quite scary.

George Freeman: The hon. Lady makes a series of interesting points. Her criticisms would perhaps apply more to the Bill introduced by Lord Saatchi in the other House. Let me confirm that this Bill has nothing at all to do with clinical research. It is to do with clarifying the freedoms that she is right to say that clinicians enjoy today. Clinicians are free to prescribe any treatment for their patients that they feel is appropriate on the basis of the clinical evidence.
	The specific problem that the Government recognise, whether or not this Bill is the appropriate mechanism to deal with it, is that in order for clinicians to feel confident in making an innovative prescription or adopting an innovative procedure, the biggest barrier is the lack of information on what innovative procedures are out there already being used by other clinicians. It was with that in mind that the registry was originally proposed in the Bill introduced by Lord Saatchi in the other place. It was originally intended as a registry of innovative practices that clinicians adopted under the procedures in the Bill, which merely clarify the existing protections already afforded by medical negligence law. It was felt that that registry would be a helpful innovation in itself.
	The Government’s view is that, as we build an infrastructure for the provision of information to clinicians to support off-label use of medicines and access to the latest information on innovative treatments, that registry could provide a much more interesting function of providing to clinicians, at the click of a mouse, an up-to-date registry of innovative medicines that are available and off-label and other treatments that other clinicians are already using. I want to stress that this Bill, which has a very different structure from the original Bill introduced by Lord Saatchi, has nothing to do with research at all. It is purely to do with supporting innovative prescribing by clinicians by providing them with information on innovations that they might consider.

Philippa Whitford: Does not this undermine our existing structures of clinical research? Those protect the patient through ethics and research being reviewed, whereas this allows a couple of doctors to say, “We’re going to give you liquorice for your cancer”, and that can get put on to a database. Many in the profession are anxious about this.

George Freeman: I want to make two things absolutely clear. First, this Bill, in law, would have no impact at all on clinical research. We in the Department have been very clear about that. If it in any way changed the basis on which clinical research is regulated, it would be a very serious matter, because we lead the world in terms of our ethical and regulatory controls on research, and it is vital that we do not affect that.
	Secondly, it would be a matter of very serious concern if this Bill were to undermine patient or public trust and confidence in our NHS, our research medicine and our clinical trials infrastructure. I flagged up on Second Reading the fact that I do have some concerns. Some of those relate to the way in which this debate is conducted, although I am not making any comment about the hon. Lady’s intervention. It is very important that we explain to people what this Bill does and does not do. If we mislead them, it is not surprising that we will get a lot of unnecessary fear. It is very important that we clarify that this has nothing to do with clinical research.

Sarah Wollaston: Does the Minister accept, however, that the Association of Medical Research Charities, the Academy of Royal Medical Colleges, the British Medical Association, and an A to Z of other organisations involved with medical research are very clear that this does undermine participation in medical research? He should listen to those concerns and acknowledge that they are genuine.

George Freeman: Yes, indeed; I have listened. I acknowledged those concerns on Second Reading and said I was concerned about them. This is merely a debate about the Bill—there is no change in the law—and it is only this debate that is upsetting people at the moment. It is therefore very important that we carry it out in a way that makes it clear to them what this Bill does and does not achieve.
	I am concerned that the passage of the Bill, the conduct of the debate, and any legislation that may survive the process of parliamentary scrutiny do not in any way undermine public or patient trust and confidence in clinical research or mainstream medicine. Were it to do so, I would be very concerned and the Government would be unable to support it. I have made it very clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry that that is the No. 1 consideration, and as this is his private Member’s Bill, it is his task to get it to a point at which the Government would feel able to support it. Public trust and confidence in our NHS and in our clinical research infrastructure is crucial.

John Baron: May I add to the voice of my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) and suggest that not just the bodies she mentioned but many of the cancer bodies, charities and communities are very concerned about this Bill? Let me bring the Minister back to the issue of evidence. The pursuit of justice starts with evidence, and there is no evidence that litigation is deterring doctors from innovating. This Bill, in many respects, addresses a non-existent problem. If it is not necessary to legislate, it is necessary not to legislate.

George Freeman: As my hon. Friend knows, I have a lot of respect for his logic and his position, so let me be very clear again. As I tried to explain, I accept that if one were setting out a list of the biggest barriers to the uptake of innovation, fear of negligence would not be No. 1 on the list. However, it is equally true, as has been put to us during the consultation on this Bill, that it is a consideration. It is very important that the mechanism is proportionate to that obstacle. I think that that is the point he is really making, and I could not agree more. I signalled on Second Reading, and signal again now, that for the Government the most interesting part of this Bill is about access to information on innovative medicines and treatments for clinicians, who already have the freedom to innovate.
	The second part of the Bill, as we understand it—we have taken substantial legal advice—does not in any way change the law on medical negligence; we would struggle if it did. Rather, it sets out a clear pathway for doctors seeking to enjoy the freedoms that are already in law to make it very clear what the procedure would be. People might say that these are fairly marginal improvements and ask whether they really merit the time of the House, but it is not for me to judge what is or is not an appropriate use of Parliament’s time. However, I do understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry is trying to tackle, through a small measure, something that we all have an interest in, which is increasing access to innovative medicine.
	The focus on provision of information that is reflected in the Bill’s new title and structure has the potential for an interesting mechanism. That is why we have looked at what the costs might be of putting such a database together. The figure that I have given is based on the understanding that further significant scoping work would be required were the Bill to become law, including consideration of the modification of existing coding systems to capture an innovation in medical notes, the data flow and the searching capability before the information centre—the HSCIC—was able to provide a robustly costed solution. Until proposed options and variables undergo additional policy refinement, including the development of a proper specification, it is not possible to offer a further estimate of supporting costs. The affordability of any specific proposal and future investment in technology more generally will also need to be considered in the light of the forthcoming spending review settlement, and the work of the National Information Board, which is putting in place a broader framework for the flow of information in the NHS.
	Medical practitioners are already required to comply with the GMC and MBA guidance on record keeping, and the recording of an innovation for front-line staff is therefore based on existing practice. Thus no additional costs are foreseen for medical practitioners or their own organisation. Officials in the Department of Health are currently drafting an impact assessment to examine the estimated impact of the Bill and to understand better the likely costs and benefits of the proposals.
	The database proposed by the Bill—should it survive parliamentary scrutiny—may ultimately improve the flow of information to clinicians on the range of innovative treatments that are already available. Those treatments might include off-label uses of medicines, about which the House is interested in connection with another Bill. In our view, the biggest barrier to the flow of information through the system is the lack of incentives or proper reward for innovation. That is to do with how we reward patterns of activity, rather than the promotion of health and healthcare. The lack of availability of data and information is one of the biggest barriers. Subject to whatever scrutiny and changes the Bill may undergo in Committee, we think that there is a potential prize worth winning, but I appreciate that the Committee will need to go through the Bill in some detail.

Justin Madders: I will not detain the House for long, as my hon. Friend the shadow Health Secretary set out in detail our concerns about the Bill on Second Reading. I will say in summary that the Opposition believe the Bill to be at best unnecessary, and at worst a danger to patients.
	The Bill is strongly opposed by a number of medical royal colleges, including the Royal College of Surgeons, the Royal College of Pathologists and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. There is strong opposition from several medical research charities, including Cancer Research UK, Alzheimer’s Research UK and the British Heart Foundation. There is also strong opposition from bodies such as the Wellcome Trust, the Patients Association and Action against Medical Accidents.
	Given the range and depth of concern, I do not understand how the Minister can be so comfortable in supporting the Bill, even though he contends that he is not supporting it. I ask him to reconsider the Government’s position. We will see very shortly whether the point made by the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) is correct, and whether the Government are as neutral on the Bill as they state.

George Freeman: The hon. Gentleman will be familiar with the procedures of the House, but I just want to confirm that once the House has given a private Member’s Bill a Second Reading, the convention is that the Government, even when they robustly oppose it, always table a money resolution so that the Committee need not concern itself with that matter. Doing so is not a signal of Government support; it is absolutely in line with the convention of the House with all private Members’ Bills, whether we oppose or support them.

Justin Madders: I am grateful to the Minister for his clarification. As I say, we shall see very shortly whether that is the case.
	I understand that the part of the Bill to which the money resolution primarily relates will give the Secretary of State the power to set up a database. As the shadow Secretary of State set out on Second Reading, we consider that unnecessary because, under section 254 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, the Secretary of State and NHS England have the power to direct the Health and Social Care Information Centre to establish and operate a system for the collection or analysis of information. I note that, in a recent letter to the shadow Health Secretary, the Minister said:
	“Under section 254 of the Health and Social Care Act the Secretary of State has the power to direct the Health and Social Care Information Centre to establish and operate a system for the collection or analysis of information of a description specified in the direction.”
	I understand the Minister’s argument is that he thinks it is appropriate to give the Secretary of State an express power, but I am not convinced by that and neither are many in the medical profession, including the Royal College of Surgeons.
	We believe that the Bill attempts to address a problem, namely the fear of litigation, that simply does not exist and for which the profession have provided no evidence. There is a risk that it will undermine the methodical and reasoned approach to research that already exists. In the context of the £30 billion challenge that the NHS faces and the financial problems that are taxing us all, we note that the Bill may prove to be a step in the wrong direction. We will vote against the money resolution for the Bill, and we will no doubt see what the Government make of it when they have considered their research on the costs.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I thank the Government for introducing, as is the convention of this place, the money resolution on my private Member’s Bill.
	Several colleagues have expressed their concerns about the Bill, as the Opposition spokesman has just done. I must say to them, and to the Association of Medical Research Charities and other bodies, that many of the briefings seem to relate to the previous iteration of the Saatchi Bill that went through three Readings in the other place and have not been changed for this Bill, even though this Bill is massively different from that brought forward by Lord Saatchi in the House of Lords.
	The Bill has two elements. It proposes that a database of innovation be established for only registered medical practitioners to use when they innovate or depart from standard medical practice. As we have already heard, doctors and surgeons say that they regularly innovate.

Phillip Lee: I would never question my hon. Friend’s intentions in this area, but the AMRC’s summary states:
	“we do not see the need for this legislation and do not believe the Bill will achieve its aim of encouraging medical innovation.”
	It goes on to say that
	“this Bill…as it stands is unnecessary and may adversely impact on patients and medical research”.
	That view is supported, among others, by Cancer Research UK, the British Heart Foundation and the Wellcome Trust. Does that not give him pause for thought before he proceeds with the Bill?

Chris Heaton-Harris: Yes, it does. I have talked to those organisations constantly from the conception of the idea of stealing these two ideas from the Saatchi Bill, and I will continue to talk to every organisation that wishes to talk to me about the Bill. If that was a bid to be on the Bill Committee to offer an alternative view and help me pick through the details of the legislation to ensure that it does what I intend it to do, I welcome my hon. Friend’s approach because a couple of people who would have added great value to the process and the Bill are not able to sit on the Committee.
	I gave the example on Second Reading of a surgeon who had innovated and saved the life of his patient, but who was unable quickly to communicate that to his peers as there was no comprehensive means of doing so. The database has been called for by many of the medical colleges, as is acknowledged in the briefings that my hon. Friend will have read. The database is important in spreading the best innovations, because it will include not just the successes of any innovation, but its failures. That will allow best practice to spread quickly and for other registered medical practitioners to learn from any innovation. It will not be available for patients to access and will be held by the Health and Social Care Information Centre, as we have just heard, which is where the money resolution directs the money towards.
	The database will not cover research and will not hamper recruitment to clinical trials. Nothing in the Bill will allow doctors to bypass any process or requirement that has been set by their trust in relation to undertaking innovative treatments in the NHS, including the requirement to ensure that commissioners will fund any treatment that is not provided by the NHS. As we all know, individual innovation is incredibly important, but it is not a suitable substitute for medical research, which usually tests the efficacy of treatments in a systematic way. I hope that successful innovations will lead to systematic research projects as the evidence builds around a particular specialty and that they will thereby encourage more clinical trials.
	The second part of the Bill, which I fully acknowledge is much more controversial, will give registered medical practitioners a supplementary method of demonstrating that they have acted responsibly while innovating. It closely mirrors the existing legal test, the Bolam test, that is used when clinical negligence proceedings reach the court stage. It brings the test forward and enables doctors to use it to demonstrate that they have acted responsibly before they enter the courtroom. It does not change the common law.

John Baron: I fully respect the good intentions behind the Bill and those of my hon. Friend. I suggest to him that his last point perhaps misses the more fundamental point that it is the fear of litigation that may deter doctors and medical professionals generally from innovating, and thereby put patients at risk. Does he accept that that is at least a valid concern?

Chris Heaton-Harris: I am not convinced that that is the case because doctors and registered medical practitioners innovate daily across the national health service. Litigation might be a consideration in the back of their minds, but they are all responsible doctors doing the best for their patients. I do not quite see my hon. Friend’s point.
	Doctors have to demonstrate that they have acted responsibly and that remains the case under my Bill. If they have not acted responsibly, they will be subject, as they are now, to the full force of medical negligence law and bodies such as the General Medical Council.
	I would argue that my Bill provides extra safeguards to protect patients from medics who peddle treatments that are dangerous or misguided. First, any doctor must act responsibly and in the best interests of his or her patients. They must also be able to demonstrate that they have done so—as they do now—if it gets to a court of law. Secondly, when an innovation is listed on the database, its successes and failures have to be listed. If a rogue doctor’s peers are able quickly to see the exact results of their innovation, would that doctor not be almost exposing themselves and their quackery to their peers?
	My Bill has massively evolved from Lord Saatchi’s Medical Innovation Bill from which many of the criticisms levelled against it come. I have been working with the Department of Health, and others, to ensure that the Bill achieves its central aim, and I know that I have a long road ahead should the Bill get through Committee and its other stages. I fully intend to work with everybody who wishes to make suggestions and help constructively so that we can get to a point where we have a database of innovation that can help spread best practice across our NHS.

Philippa Whitford: There are many ways for a surgeon to share their experience if they have carried out an operation in the heat of the moment to save someone’s life. The “British Medical Journal” publishes things on a weekly basis and can share interesting cases. The danger of the Bill is that the database is being used as a fig leaf to make it sound like access to innovative treatments. The hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) said that a doctor would have to prove that something was safe, but the first person prescribing liquorice for cancer has no method of proving that it is safe. That is the basis of research.
	Phase 1 trials involve a small group of patients who fully consent to undergo treatment and know what they are taking on, based on pre-clinical research. Phase 2 is larger, and phase 3 involves multiple hospitals. We have that process to avoid a couple of doctors in a canteen saying, “That’s not a bad idea. I’ll back you if you back me”, and patients being given something dangerous. The Bill would not, of itself, undermine research in some way, but if patients and the public feel that they are guinea pigs for any old treatment that someone wants to have a bash at, that will undermine research.
	It has taken decades to get to our current level of safety, checks and balances. That has been streamlined, and single ethical permissions are carried out once for the whole country, and then recognised in all health boards and areas. That has made things a lot easier, but it is crucial that patients who sign up to a treatment know that there has been a degree of rigour before they are given that drug.
	If someone is bleeding to death in the middle of the night, of course a surgeon can innovate because every operation is slightly different, but we are talking about access to medical treatment that will predominantly involve drugs that have not had sufficient pre-clinical work. That is of concern to research charities and the royal colleges—I am a member of the Royal College of Surgeons—because of patient safety. The absolute concern is not even the secondary impact on research; it is the impact on patient safety and people finding that they are being given something totally unproven.

Andrew Slaughter: The hon. Lady is making a good point, and I agree with everything she says. As a lawyer rather than a doctor, I think the problem with the Bill is that—unintentionally, I am sure—it also undermines carefully constructed juris- prudence on clinical negligence, and it is dangerous for that reason.

Philippa Whitford: Of course the Bill is well-intentioned, and its title will attract support from people who think that it means getting access to drugs to which we do not currently have access. It is not that any doctor can prescribe anything—we cannot. We can prescribe drugs that are licensed and recognised, and have a basic safety profile. In Westminster Hall we often debate access to expensive, innovative, brand new treatments, but that is not about our right as a doctor to prescribe them; it is about who will pay for them because some of those drugs are expensive. As the Minister has said, that would still be an issue. In what sense would a commissioning group have evidence to allow a doctor to prescribe a drug that has absolutely no basis, but that would have to be funded?
	The Bill is basically a bit of a mess. What problem is it trying to answer? People think it means that they will get earlier access to new drugs, but drugs should be taken forward on the correct path to protect patients and doctors. Doctors need to know that what we are doing is right, and not some random thing that has been on a database after somebody tried something once and it seemed to work. We know that there are placebo and random effects.

Maria Caulfield: I support everything the hon. Lady has just said. I was a research nurse in cancer care for more than 10 years. We observed good clinical practice standards, and the standards of the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency and the FDA, because mistakes happened. Those safeguards are in place for a reason. The No. 1 reason is to protect the patient.

Philippa Whitford: I did my MD thesis in the late ’80s on the use of monoclonals in breast cancer, which was then totally blue-sky thinking. What became Herceptin was found at that time. I remember speaking at a conference in America where people presented their research. At that time, they thought they had to put a toxin on the back of an antibody to make it work. They were using ricin, which was used in the Bulgarian umbrella murder, and—surprise, surprise—almost all their patients died. They got around that in America by going to Mexico and to prisons. It is not the case that everything a doctor thinks might work will be good for patients. We have developed a safe system over decades and we give it away at our peril.

Sarah Wollaston: I rise to oppose the money resolution because this is bad legislation. It is unnecessary and could undermine essential protections for our patients. That is why an A to Z of medical royal colleges and research charities oppose the Bill, as does Action against Medical Accidents, the British Medical Association and so on—the list goes on. This is the time at which the House must bring the legislation to an end.
	I am concerned at the selective misquoting of a number of bodies. Many of the medical royal colleges have objected to being selectively misquoted during debates on the Bill. I will quote from just one of the royal colleges; the president of the Royal College of Physicians, Jane Dacre, would like to put the college’s views on the record. She says:
	“The RCP does not support the progression of the Access to Medical Treatments Bill through Parliament. The primary objective of the Bill to create a parallel innovation process may result in unforeseen consequences that negatively impact on patient safety. The Bill may further undermine and overcomplicate the established existing process for conducting innovation, damaging the UK’s innovation process. As the RCP has previously stated prior to previous readings of the Access to Medical Treatment Bill and the Medical Innovation Bill it is unclear how the legislation will improve upon the existing innovation process or address the real barriers to conducting innovation. The RCP does not support the Bill’s progress through Parliament.”
	We should also be clear that the Minister does not need the legislation in order to introduce the processes that all hon. Members would support to facilitate communication between research bodies about genuine innovations. We need to simplify the processes by which patients understand which research trials are out there from which they could benefit. When I started in medicine 24 years ago, many of the children I treated for leukaemia were dying. Children today with the same conditions survive not as a result of a series of unconnected, anecdotal, have-a-go treatments, but because of the medical research that built the foundation for the treatments from which they now benefit.
	Our patients and our constituents want to contribute to research that benefits future generations, but they cannot do so through an unconnected database of anecdotal treatments. A series of anecdotes does not constitute evidence. We need to be careful of that. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris). He has good intentions, but I simply do not agree with the Bill.

Jim Shannon: I, too, have concerns about the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris). I agree in principle about the need for quick, easy and affordable access to effective treatments for patients, and new developments and initiatives that improve access to innovative treatments should be encouraged so long as they do not have a negative impact on patient safety. The hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) made that point, as did other Members.
	Questions and concerns have been raised by a number of prominent UK charities—the British Heart Foundation, Prostate Cancer UK and Alzheimer’s Research UK, to name but a few. We must be careful not to confuse intention with outcome. The main concern is the potential risk to medical research, and the Association of Medical Research Charities, which represents a large number of prominent and well respected medical charities, has expressed concern that
	“the bill may inadvertently act to discourage patients from participating in robust research studies”.
	That is important, and we must be clear that we are concerned about introducing legislation that has perhaps not been fully thought out.
	Further concerns include the vagueness of certain definitions in the Bill. For example, what exactly can be described as “accepted medical treatments”? Well respected UK charities in the sector have expressed concern about the vagueness of that definition, and it is just one of many concerns.
	The Bill is loose and it is not definitive. It is also unclear. With great respect to the hon. Member for Daventry, we need to go back to the drawing board with this one. In addition to concerns about unintended consequences, there is the question of whether the Bill is really necessary. I reiterate my support for innovation as a principle—it should be encouraged and welcomed—but I want the House to note the comments that many hon. Members have made today and be mindful of the concerns that have been raised, because we do not want the Bill, however well intended, to have unintended negative consequences.

John Baron: I, too, wholly support the purpose of the Bill and the good intentions behind it, but I am opposed to the Bill itself. I declare an interest as chair of the all-party group on cancer.
	Parliamentary scrutiny demands evidence. The Bill is based on the false premise that doctors are somehow deterred from innovating because of a fear of being sued for negligence. I am not aware of any evidence to support that. Doctors can and do innovate without the proposed law. The innovative response to the Ebola crisis was one example of that. Lord Woolf, a leading supporter of the Bill in the other place, wrote in The Daily Telegraph in April 2014:
	“What I do know about, from sitting as a judge, are the cases where doctors are sued for negligence because they have innovated in the treatment they offer, rather than following generally accepted medical standards.”
	A member of the public then questioned him and asked him to produce evidence of such cases, to which he replied:
	“I am not prepared to be cross-examined further”.
	Lord Woolf did not cite a single case to support his position. Surely the pursuit of justice starts with evidence. With respect, that sort of judicial paternalism has no place in the modern world. Nowadays, the public expect and deserve better. I am informed by the joint editors of the leading text “Clinical Negligence” that they are not aware of any such cases. Doctors are sued for poor practice, not for innovative practice.
	The supporters of the Bill need to provide evidence that doctors are being sued for innovative practice. They need to identify the cases in which that is happening. There cannot be any informed debate until they provide that information. So far, they have not produced any shred of evidence to support their position. The Bill addresses a non-existent problem. If it is not necessary to legislate, then it is necessary not to legislate. Moreover, there is a duty not to pass bad law. This Bill, like the Medical Innovation Bill before it, proposes law that is not only unnecessary but would turn out to be bad.

Andrew Slaughter: I will be brief. The hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) may be beginning to think that he had a lucky Friday when he got the Bill a Second Reading. When one looks at it in detail, it has a number of flaws.
	Action against Medical Accidents, a reputable organisation that I have worked closely with, has stated:
	“We believe that the proposed changes would have serious unintended consequences such as lowering protection for patients and patient safety”—
	a point a number of Members have dealt with—
	“causing confusion about the law which could hamper rather than help medical innovation; and leaving patients who have been harmed as a result of what currently would be deemed negligent treatment with no redress.”
	It is the last of those points that concerns me. Many leading QCs in the field of medical negligence have also raised concerns about it. If people have been injured by negligent medical treatment, they must have redress. That redress was substantially withdrawn in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. It is only right that we are clear that we want to preserve it, not only for the individuals involved but because standards of medical practice are enhanced and improved if they are attacked on the rare occasions when they fall below standard. For those reasons, I oppose the money resolution.

George Freeman: It is not for me to defend this private Member’s Bill, promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), but I want to deal with two or three points that have been raised in connection with the Government’s view of clinical research and patient safety, both of which are very important.
	The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) made an impassioned plea that patient safety not be undermined. I reiterate that the Bill will in no way have any impact on our clinical research approvals and ethical regulatory infrastructure, which are world-class and a much prized jewel in our crown. The Bill merely—by saying merely, I do not mean to undermine its potential impact—deals with freedoms to prescribe innovatively, which already exist and are enjoyed by clinicians. It is important that everyone understands that doctors are already free to prescribe medicines. They have sovereignty in prescribing treatment to their patients where they believe there is good clinical evidence.
	The hon. Lady made a point about the importance of evidence. The part of the Bill that the Government think is of particular interest is the mechanism for accelerating the giving of evidence to clinicians on currently available innovations—both innovative medicines and the off-label innovative use of existing medicines. It is worth bearing in mind the House’s interest in accelerating off-label use through the provision of information. Patient safety and patient protection are absolutely key, and we will do nothing, and allow nothing, that undermines that.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) raised a range of concerns. They are all legitimate, but I think the place to address them is in Committee. I reiterate that nothing in the Bill will interfere in any way with UK clinical research infrastructure.
	In response to the point that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) made about whether the Government support the Bill, let me be very clear: the Government neither oppose nor support the Bill. We are prepared to work with the Bill’s sponsors to get it to a place where it supports the environment that we want to see.
	On testing the will of the House, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government always support money resolutions, even on Bills to which they are blatantly opposed. That is the convention, so he will be testing and proving nothing other than that we will stick to the convention of always supporting the money resolution to a Bill.

Question put.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 281, Noes 227.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

International Immunities and Privileges

That the draft the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 12 October, be approved.

Legal Aid and Advice

That the Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2015 (S.I., 2015, No. 1571), dated 23 July 2015, a copy of which was laid before this House on 24 July, be approved.—(Jackie Doyle-Price.)
	Question agreed to.

European Union Documents

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

Value Added Taxation

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 9926/12 and Addenda 1 and 2, a draft Council Directive amending Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax, as regards the treatment of vouchers; welcomes the objective of harmonised VAT rules for vouchers to support a smooth operation of the Single Market and fewer possibilities of double and non-taxation; and further notes that the Government is keen that any solution ensures that the right amount of tax is collected on what the customer pays, in line with the principles of taxation of consumption.—(Jackie Doyle-Price.)
	Question agreed to.

MILITARY PERSONNEL AND VETERANS (CHILDREN AND YOUNG CARERS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Jackie Doyle-Price.)

Martin Docherty: I am glad to have secured this Adjournment debate on the need to support the children, young people and young carers of military personnel and veterans. In the week leading up to Remembrance Sunday, I am glad that so many Members—at least on the SNP Benches—have chosen to stay for the debate.
	Given that we are approaching Remembrance Sunday, I should not need to remind the House that communities and politicians across these islands will seek to commemorate the fallen. During a recent Adjournment debate on mental health and armed forces veterans, which was secured by my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron), it became clear to me and to those watching that there is a glaring omission in this House’s public policy with regard to military personnel, veterans and those who suffer as a result of a familial connection with the armed forces. I am grateful to the Minister for Community and Social Care for taking an intervention from me during that debate, but I am sure that neither he nor the Ministry of Defence would have thought it would lead to this Adjournment debate on the support that should be offered to the children, young people and young carers of the families of military personnel and veterans. I hope that the House will forgive me for reiterating the title of the debate. It is critical, given some of the glaring omissions in public policy that we are currently seeing.
	Academics are rightly continuing to explore the impact, effect and outcome of participation in combat. I am grateful to Mr Paul Watson, who, having listened to the debate led by my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow, forwarded to me a range of research material and other information relating to the issue. I am especially grateful to Paul for highlighting the lack of research on the lives and experiences of children within the wider military family, which includes the Ministry of Defence.

Jim Shannon: It is always a pleasure to be involved in Adjournment debates, and I commend the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue. According to Beyond the Battlefield, a charity in my constituency that looks after ex-service personnel and veterans, 18,700 of them are receiving some sort of care in Northern Ireland. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is not only the veterans who suffer, but their wives and children, and that the effects are far-reaching and long-lasting?

Martin Docherty: I certainly could not disagree with the hon. Gentleman—who, indeed, has stolen some of the thunder from the rest of my speech—about the wider impact of service life on the partners, spouses and children of both veterans and those in active service.

Mark Pritchard: I hope that I can add to the thunder of the hon. Gentleman’s speech. I am sure that he was going on to mention the great work of Combat Stress, which—in Newport, Shropshire, which is in my constituency, and across the country—is doing a great job in helping veterans of not just the second world war but the Falklands, Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns, among others, to reintegrate themselves in society. Will he join me in paying tribute to all those who do such a great job in supporting Combat Stress?

Martin Docherty: I am more than delighted to congratulate those who support any organisation that helps veterans and their families, no matter who they are. My family has a long service record—that applies to both my father and my brother—and I am gratefully aware of the support that is offered to all our veterans and their families.
	Even in the recently published Ashcroft review, a document consisting of more than 200 pages, the impact of service life on the lives of children is mentioned only about six times. Little or no mention is made of the impact of pre-deployment—what may be a three-month period during which a member of the armed forces undergoes training before what is usually an eight-month deployment—on the children who are left at home. There is no mention of the children who become carers to a parent who is at home, or a parent who is returning from active duty; no mention of the children who are isolated from both their families and their peers; no mention of the increased likelihood of emotional detachment; no mention of limited access to services outside the military family; no mention of the fact that children and young people may be providing practical day-to-day care in the family setting; no mention of children who experience difficulties at school, such as bullying, owing to external caring roles; no mention of the destabilising impact of a three-month pre-deployment period or subsequent eight-month deployment; and no mention of the impact of constant moving on the life choices of children in military families. That is indeed a sad litany.

Stewart Jackson: The hon. Gentleman has raised an important issue, and he is speaking with great eloquence. Does he agree that some of the more forward-looking and progressive local authorities have alighted on the issue of children’s services in the context of a commitment—which, as he knows, exists in Scotland as well as the rest of the United Kingdom —to the military covenant, the profile of which has been raised significantly in the last four or five years?

Martin Docherty: I would welcome any local authority doing that and am grateful for the fact that all 32 councils of Scotland have taken the step to become either veterans champions or to promote the issue of veterans. I can commend that every council and borough, district or local, within the countries of England, Wales and Northern Ireland follows suit.
	Research looks at a multitude of pre and post-combative effects on the health of service personnel, including post-traumatic stress disorder, pre-deployment stress, mental health, reintegration and the military family—that is for a spouse or partner. Again, there is limited literature in the UK on the issues faced by military children and young people and even less on military children and young people in a caring role.
	The Ministry of Defence estimates that there are around 120,000 military children and young people both overseas and here in the UK, although the figures do not state whether they are “full-time” military children and young people or whether they include the children and young people of those who are in the military reserves—an increasingly important element of the UK’s military capabilities.

Kirsten Oswald: This is a complex and important issue. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital that we also consider the issues of service personnel who have been made redundant and the impact of that on their families and children?

Martin Docherty: My hon. Friend raises yet another complexity of the issue—the impact of military life on children and, critically, those service personnel who have been made redundant, as many have in recent years. I can only hope the Minister will take that on board in his response to the debate.
	On the published figures, these children and young people represent 10% of the UK’s under-18 population, which is a substantial amount. Mental health research shows that child and adolescent mental health conditions are in truth common for all children and young people—that is true of both military and non-military children and young people. Office for National Statistics records from 2013 indicate that in the UK there are 13.6 million children and young people. YoungMinds has identified that mental health issues affect between 10% and 20% of all children and young people in the UK. Furthermore, these statistics show that 12% of five to 16-year-olds have a diagnosed mental health condition, with conduct disorder nearing 7% and emotional disorders being 5%.

Tim Loughton: The hon. Gentleman is doing the House a great service by raising this important issue. Is he aware that perinatal mental health problems among service families are much greater than for the rest of the population? SSAFA deals with these problems, along with the problems of higher than average domestic violence among service personnel families, with all the added pressures. It is one of the biggest employers of social workers dealing with child protection and child mental health issues and it does some very good work, but it is under huge pressure because of the problems not being taken as seriously as they might be.

Martin Docherty: That intervention goes to the heart of the subject matter and its complexity. Domestic abuse is a huge issue in military life, as it is in many other aspects of ordinary life. I am sure the Minister will take that on board in replying to the debate.
	When contextualised, the figures I mentioned show that 12,000 military children and young people may have a problem with their mental health. In addition, research from the USA shows that there is an 11% increase in the number of children and young people who access mental health services when one or both parents are deployed into combat.
	The issue of young carers in the military family requires further explanation. They are typically aged between five and 24 and help look after a relative with a condition such as a disability, an illness, a mental health condition or a drug or alcohol problem, who is serving, or has served, in the armed forces. We are talking about a condition or disability that, in all likelihood, may have appeared during active service.
	Why do we need to support these carers? Some 13,000 of the UK’s young carers care for more than 50 hours a week. Young adult carers aged between 16 and 18 are twice as likely to be not in education, employment, or training. Figures from the MOD show that 2,130 military personnel were severely or very severely physically injured between 2001 and 2014 in combat action, and the relevant current ratio is one child per nearly two and a half veterans—that cannot be maintained. MOD figures also show an increase of 19% in the number of veterans being diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder from 2013, with the relevant estimated ratio being one military dependent child to nearly two and a half veterans. The impact on children and young people must be recognised, not only by the House, but in policy and in its implementation to improve their lives.
	As a Scottish constituency Member, I am mindful of the ongoing and leading work being undertaken in Scotland. Along with my colleagues, I am grateful to the leadership of our Government in Edinburgh and the Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure, Investment and Cities, Keith Brown, who has responsibility for veterans and is a veteran himself. This has been crucial in the appointment of the Scottish Veterans Commissioner, whose Transition in Scotland report of 27 March highlighted the myriad issues that have an impact on those in military service and their families. Like the Scottish Veterans Commissioner, I welcome the steps taken by the MOD in implementing some of the Ashcroft review recommendations.

Stewart McDonald: My hon. Friend rightly mentions the Scottish Government’s role in trying to deal with the complexity of these issues, and other hon. Members have mentioned the role of third sector organisations in their constituencies. In my constituency, Cathcart old parish church has set up a veterans centre to support veterans and their families. Does he agree that the churches are equally as crucial in helping to deal with the complexity of the problems that military personnel and their families face?

Martin Docherty: My hon. Friend is correct in what he says. Not just faith organisations, but voluntary third sector organisations the length and breadth of these islands play a crucial role in the support provided to veterans and to their families.
	I am hopeful that the MOD recognises that as a Member of this House representing a Scottish constituency I feel that there is little or no acknowledgment of the challenges facing service personnel and their families outside England, in terms of the policy context. This debate offers the opportunity for the Government to rectify the position in which they find themselves; they seem to be lacking in knowledge of the services in not only Scotland, but Wales and Northern Ireland, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) would agree.
	I can at least take some comfort from the fact that the Secretary of State, and perhaps even the Minister, will meet my colleague the Cabinet Secretary shortly to discuss matters of common interest. I hope that, given the opportunity, the Secretary of State will use the occasion to advise the Department of the differing approaches in differing jurisdictions, which may offer some comfort and support to children, young people and young carers in families of military personnel and veterans.
	Critically, I ask the Minister to consider the recommendation of the Ashcroft review and other MOD documents that are based predominantly on policy and service delivery models found in England and Wales, to the exclusion of those service families choosing to settle in Scotland or in Northern Ireland. The Ministry must recognise the differing policy geography in which it and the service families find themselves, especially in relation to housing, healthcare, employment, social care and education, which all have an impact on children in the military family. The sooner that is recognised, the sooner children across the services will reap the benefits of a transition from military life to civilian life when a parent ends their military career through discharge or, yes, through redundancy.
	I am grateful to the organisations and individuals who have informed this debate, and, based on their recommendations, I leave plausible opportunities for the UK Government to improve the support offered to children, young people and young carers of military personnel and veterans. They include: supporting further research to understand service children and young people across the UK not in a silo, but in partnership with devolved Governments; utilising strengths within our military and civilian communities, critically learning from the other devolved Administrations, including Scotland; supporting military young carers to maintain good academic and emotional health and well-being outcomes, critically linking with differing policy approaches such as Curriculum for Excellence in Scotland, which leads the way in a more person-centred approach; and considering the creation of digital health passports to support health transition through the child’s military journey, reducing the times a child has to tell their health story to the NHS.

Chris Law: This matter has also been brought to my attention in my constituency. Very often the problem is that when military personnel move to a new constituency, it takes an imponderable time to get NHS data. Is it not the responsibility of the MOD to give both service and finance to help ease that across the devolved nations?

Martin Docherty: I would not disagree with my hon. Friend, not least because he is a lot taller than me. [Interruption.] Everybody is taller than me. Even my father is taller than me. That is enough of the light-hearted moment.
	I hope that we can approach this matter in a collegiate manner across the Chamber. Critically, the Ministry of Defence must recognise the impact of its policy approach on other public services, such as the NHS. There is a need for resources, especially when we are talking about the recording of issues for children and young people who are part of the military family.
	I ask the MOD to consider strengthening families at specific times during deployments. For example, we could have a wrap-around approach to service, especially for service forces children who, more often than not, are part of the military family. I am also talking about those who remain within their own distinct communities—critically, the children of those in the reserve forces who remain at home.
	The MOD should also work with the devolved Administrations to educate and facilitate all involved with military families during both the deployment cycle and family reintegration; and to facilitate the empowerment of military families to enable the growth of resilience while supporting caring responsibilities.
	I hope that the Minister uses this debate as an opportunity to improve things, particularly the support for children, young people and young carers in the families of military personnel and veterans, as we approach Remembrance Sunday.

Mark Lancaster: I congratulate the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin John Docherty) on securing this debate on the support for children, young people and young carers of military personnel and veterans. I thank him for the constructive way in which he has approached the subject. I have been a serviceman for some 27 years, and I remain in the reserve forces. Having been deployed on operations some three times, I appreciate the impact that service life can have on families —indeed it has had an impact on my own family—so I am particularly pleased to be able to respond to the debate this evening.
	First, let me reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Ministry of Defence takes its overall responsibilities for service children and young people extremely seriously. In 2010, the significance of those responsibilities led the Ministry of Defence to establish a separate directorate for children and young people to ensure that all those with specific responsibilities for service children and young people understood, accepted and delivered on those responsibilities. Within that directorate, the MOD’s Children’s Education Advisory Service provides education-related information, advice and support to families and the military chain of command. I should point out at this stage that responsibility for service children and young people is not the exclusive preserve of the Ministry of Defence, and depends very much on where the service child or young person is living, whether they are in the United Kingdom or based overseas.
	Within the four home countries of the United Kingdom, statutory responsibility for the care and support of our service children and young people remains with other Government Departments, the devolved Administrations, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, and local authorities. We expect our service children and young people to benefit from the same level of care and support as any other child, and that lies at the heart of the armed forces covenant. However, we recognise that a parent’s military service will often place additional pressures on service children and young people, particularly when families are required to move to new duty locations and when a parent is deployed for a lengthy period away from home, especially if deployed on active service. Recognising that, the MOD works closely with the statutory organisations to help them understand and mitigate these additional pressures. The work under the armed forces covenant has led to many significant improvements, not least in schools admissions codes and special educational needs and disabilities codes.
	For its part, in 2011 the MOD created the MOD education support fund, which now disburses £6 million each year to assist state schools and settings across the United Kingdom in mitigating the impacts of family mobility and parental deployment on service children and young people. I want to take the opportunity to acknowledge the effective use that schools and settings across the United Kingdom have made of the fund. The list is almost endless, and includes setting up clubs to record and send electronic messages to deployed parents and recording school plays and other activities to be shared with those deployed parents, keeping them part of the family while they are away. The fund also provides nurture rooms or quiet spaces where it is possible for children to spend quiet time away from the noise of school during difficult times.
	To underpin that financial support, an enormous amount of effective collaborative work takes place at regional and local levels. In partnership with education departments across all four home countries, the MOD has established a number of effective practitioner networks to identify and share best practice in the support of our service children and young people. I recognise that across the four home countries there are different practices, and I am keen to ensure that we share best practice to benefit our young people. Members of the networks support our children on a daily basis, and provide an early indication when things might not be going to plan. They provide the evidence that supports any changes in policy required better to support our children, and to remove any disadvantage that our children might be encountering.
	Even though the MOD does not have statutory responsibilities for children and young people within the United Kingdom, our service children and young people can benefit from non-statutory support that the MOD provides. Each of the armed services maintains an occupational welfare service that operates below the statutory level and provides additional support to service children and young people through a range of services and activities, including community and youth work activities in addition to those provided by local authorities, as well as providing access to emotional support through trained and experienced counsellors. For service families who suffer bereavement when a parent or guardian’s death is attributable to their service, assistance with the education of their children can be provided from the armed forces bereavement scholarship scheme.
	When our service personnel and their families are based overseas outside the United Kingdom, the Ministry of Defence acts in lieu of a local authority and delivers appropriate levels of near-statutory provision. In the case of our children and young people that means that the MOD provides, or provides access to, the normal range of children’s services: education, health, social care and safeguarding, and youth development activities. Our MOD schools overseas have an excellent reputation, and their Ofsted gradings and attainment results are routinely above the national averages. These schools have a rich history of mitigating the impact of mobility and deployment that our children can sometimes face. Importantly, this valuable experience is now shared widely and very effectively with schools in the United Kingdom attended by service children, either directly or via routine conferences held by the national networks that I mentioned earlier. In this context I would like to acknowledge the sterling work done to ensure that the over 2,000 service children who returned from Germany this summer under the Army’s basing programme experienced a smooth transition to their new schools and communities in the United Kingdom.
	On the subject of MOD schools, I am sure the hon. Gentleman would wish me to reaffirm the Ministry of Defence’s commitment to our only remaining MOD school in the UK, the Queen Victoria school in Dunblane. Established in 1905 through public subscription and maintained in perpetuity by the Ministry of Defence, QVS plays an important part in providing continuity of education for service children with a Scottish connection.
	In the case of our veterans, the MOD Directorate Children and Young People continues to provide educational information, advice and support to families during and immediately after their transition back to civilian life, and longer for any enduring issues directly attributable to their time in the armed forces. Thereafter, veterans who require welfare support can access this through Veterans UK, which is part of the MOD and was created in 2007 to help ex-service personnel get appropriate support from Government, local authorities, independent bodies and the charity sector. The Veterans Welfare Service can allocate to veterans a welfare manager who provides free and confidential advice on any sort of problem and works closely with voluntary organisations, local authorities and all areas of the Department for Work and Pensions to provide the best possible help and advice.
	The issues raised in this debate are at the heart of the MOD’s welfare policies and will be further strengthened once the MOD launches the families strategy, which will be the sole topic of the MOD’s welfare conference to be held in London later this month. The strategy supports the Government’s manifesto commitment to supporting the unsung heroes—the partners and families of those who serve. Its vision is to facilitate resilient and self-sufficient families, and it is underpinned by the principles of fairness, increased choice, self-sufficiency and resilience.
	I would like to express particular thanks to the group of people who contribute most to the support of our service children and young people. That group is, of course, those service children and young people themselves. The commitment that our servicemen and servicewomen make to our country places extraordinary demands on their families, and requires their children and young people to display enormous courage, resilience and stoicism, and they do so on a daily basis. The extraordinary thing is that when one speaks to our children, they make it very clear that they do not want to be treated differently from their civilian counterparts; they just want it recognised that, from time to time, the pressures of military life mean that additional support is required if they are not to suffer disadvantage. We all have a shared responsibility to ensure that they receive it.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.